***Better for you, but Humpty has never been the same.***

Is that a "Protestants are hopelessly divided" slam? I am offended!

[not really]

I'm outta here. Shalom.

And 'good nite Barney,' you aren't worth the hassle!

Is that a "Protestants are hopelessly divided" slam? I am offended!

It was not a slam of anything. Just a meaningless post. Meant to reflect on my earlier one, which I posted to lighten up the mood.

Now just follow me here. Humpty before he came off that wall had integrity, right? The kind that Rom meant, the kind that meant his egg was not yet broken, whole.

Humpty fell and as I recall, he was not able to be put together again. So you and Rom made your peace, but that left Humpty without a resolution.

Did you happen to see A&E tonight? It was about the Kirtland- Mormon -Lundgren murders. As my family was involved in the "clean-up" and "ratting" to the media, I was very interested. I know I'm off topic, but wondered if anyone watched! Carry on.....

Your baptisms are a bit more like the ordinance of baptism we Baptists practice than they are like the sacrament of baptism that Rome believes in. At least, that is my understanding.

It is pretty telling that the Orthodox on this thread did nothing to correct your understanding. Although they won't admit it here, because it is so similar to Catholic belief, Orthodox baptism actually is a sacrament and it results in the forgiveness of sin.

I was teasing too. I was not offended, just playing with the Humpty metaphor and some of the rants about Proddies on FR.

Best to you,
Steve

note the....

[not really] in post #221. It was latge last night so I'm sure you missed the disclaimer.

I have frequently made the point about preserving the biblical portrait of Mary.

A Biblical Portrait of Mary

Mary is prefigured immediately after the Fall of Man; her divine motherhood is prophesied.

Gen 3:14-15: Then the Lord God said to the serpent: "... I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Mary and her role in the history of our salvation is foretold by the prophet Isaiah; her virginity and divine motherhood is confirmed.

Is 7:13-14: Then he (Ahaz) said: "... Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and ends with Mary.

Mt 1:16: Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke narrates the angel Gabriel's announcement to Mary that she is to conceive a son and remain a virgin.

Lk 1: 26-38: ...(The angel Gabriel said) "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you ... The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." ... Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word."

Luke also narrates Mary's visit to her cousin Elizabeth (pregnant with John the Baptist). It is Elizabeth who first calls Mary "the mother of God (Lord)".

Lk 1:39-45: ... When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? ... Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."
Lk 1:46-49: And Mary said: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name."

Matthew records Mary's engagement to Joseph.

Mt. 1:18-25: ... When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. ... the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." He (Joseph) had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Luke narrates the birth events of Jesus.

Lk 2:1-19: ... Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger ... (Shepherds) went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant ... Mary kept all these things (that the shepherds told her), reflecting on them in her heart.

Luke includes the circumcision and presentation of Jesus.

Lk 2:33-35: The child's father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

Luke narrates the loss and finding of Jesus in the temple in Jerusalem by Mary and Joseph.

Lk 2:48-51: When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety." And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" But they did not understand what he said to them. He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

John records the wedding feast at Cana where Mary prompts Jesus' first miracle.

Jn 2:1-12: On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you." ... Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him. After this, he and his mother, (his) brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days.

Matthew writes of Jesus' own words that compare his relationship with his followers to his relationship with his mother.

Mt 12:46-50 (Mk 3:31-35): While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. ... And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother."

It is John (an eye witness) who recalls his personal experience at the foot of the cross on Calvary.

Jn 19:25-27: Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

Luke, in his Acts of the Apostles, records the presence of Mary with the Apostles in the community in Jerusalem between the Ascension of Jesus and Pentecost.

Acts 1:12-14: Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away. When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying. ... All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

A final reference to Mary is found in John's Book of Revelation.

Rev 12:1-5: A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. ... She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

My hesitation in throwing in with the Catholic view here might be best explained by this writing - which also, coincidentally, supports the Reader's post, as well.

Sin: Infraction or Infection?
by Frederica Mathewes-Green

Often in conversations with Christians of other traditions I find myself explaining the Orthodox view of sin. For most Western Christians, sin is a matter of doing bad things, which create a debt to God, and which somebody has to pay off. They believe that Jesus paid the debt for our sins on the Cross-paid the Father, that is, so we would not longer bear the penalty. The central argument between Protestants and Catholics has to do with whether “Jesus paid it all” (as Protestants would say) or whether, even though the Cross is sufficient, humans are still obligated (as Catholics would say) to add their own sacrifices as well.

Orthodox, of course, have a completely different understanding of Christ's saving work. We hold to the view of the early church, that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.” Our sins made us captives of Death, and God in Christ went into Hades to set us free. The penalty of sin is not a debt we owe the Father; it is the soul-death that is the immediate and inevitable consequence of sin. We need healing and rescue, not someone to step in and square the bill. The early Christians always saw the Father pursuing and loving every sinner, doing everything to bring us back, not waiting with arms folded for a debt to be paid. When the Prodigal Son came home, the Father didn't say, “I'd love to take you back, but who's going to pay this Visa bill?”

This was the common view for the first thousand years of Christianity, until Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Great Schism, offered an alternative view. Anselm believed that God could not merely forgive us, because our sins constituted an objective wrong in the universe. It could not be made right without payment. No human could pay such a huge debt, but Jesus' blood was more than sufficient to pay it, which gave Jesus a “claim” on God the Father. “If the Son chose to make over the claim He had on God to man, could the Father justly forbid Him doing so, or refuse to man what the Son willed to give him?”

We would say that Western Christians, Protestant and Catholic, have mixed up two Scriptural concepts: “sacrifice/offering” and “ransom/payment.” Jesus couldn't have paid the “ransom” for our sins to the Father; you pay a ransom to a kidnapper, and the Father wasn't holding us hostage. No, it was the Evil One who had captured us, due to our voluntary involvement in sin. It cost Jesus his blood to enter Hades and set us free. That's the payment, or ransom, but it obviously isn't paid to the Father. Yet it is a sacrifice or offering to the Father, as a brave soldier might offer a dangerous act of courage to his beloved General.

If I haven't lost you yet, I'd like to take this one step further. As I said, I often have this conversation with other Christians, and make the point that sin is not infraction, but infection; sin makes us sick. The Christian life is one of healing and restoration; its not merely about paying a debt.

It recently occurred to me that this difference between Western and Eastern Christianity explains something else I hadn't noticed till now: that Orthodoxy doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about the problem of evil. The question of why bad things happen is a major one in the West; it seems to refute the assertion that God is good and loves us. If he's all powerful and loves us completely, why does he let bad things happen? I expect that this lingering image of a God who is reluctant to forgive, waiting to be paid, feeds a suspicion that maybe he doesn't really love us.

I think the Orthodox view of sin as illness, rather than rule-breaking, answers this. There is evil in the world because of the pollution of our sins. Our selfishness and cruelty don't merely hurt those around us, but contribute to setting the world off-balance, out of tune. It has a corporate nature. Anyone can observe that life isn't fair; bad things happen to “good” people. But even good people contribute some sin to the mix, and we all suffer the consequences of the world's mutual sin.

The radio humorist Garrison Keillor used an image for this that has always remained in my mind. He told a story about a man considering adultery, who contemplated how one act of betrayal can unbalance an entire community: “I saw that we all depend on each other. I saw that although I thought my sins could be secret, that they would be no more secret than an earthquake. All these houses and all these families, my infidelity will somehow shake them. It will pollute the drinking water. It will make noxious gases come out of the ventilators in the elementary school. When we scream in senseless anger, blocks away a little girl we do not know spills a bowl of gravy all over a white tablecloth.”

What we Orthodox keep in mind, and Western Christians often forget, is the presence of the Evil One. In Anselm's theory of the Atonement, there's no Devil. The whole transaction is between us, the Father, and Jesus (and when the Devil is ignored, he has a field day). But Orthodox know who our true enemy is, and we cling to the Lord Jesus as our deliverer. When we see evil in the world, we know immediately that “an enemy has done this” (Matthew 13:28). We're not surprised that life is unfair and that “good” people suffer; when we see innocent suffering, we know that our own sins helped cause it, by helping to unbalance the world and make a climate of injustice possible. The Evil One loves to see the innocent suffer, and the fact that such events grieve and trouble us delights him all the more. This is in fact one of the ways we bear the burden of our sins: that we must feel the wrenching pain of seeing innocence suffer, and know that we helped make it happen. Western Christians, on the other hand, who see sin as a private debt between an individual and God, and who forget the presence of the Evil One, can't figure out how God could let an innocent person suffer, and are left with the chilly thought of questioning the goodness of God.

“Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25). We do not trust in our own strength to get out of this mess, but rely entirely on the power of Jesus Christ, who has “trampled down death by death.” Day by day growing in grace, we can contribute to the world's healing, by forgiving our enemies, loving those who hate us, and overcoming evil with good. The first place it needs to be overcome, we know, is in our hearts.

I wonder if those cats even know such a thing as the Orthodox Church even exists.

I would wager that they do, but since they’re (the Orthodox) not Catholic, they must be ok, at least to some extent.

***I don't think asking for clarification of what I inferred from your references to Mary and the "RCC's ...distorted...biblical portrait" of her was out of line.***

Nor do I, that why I explained my process that led to posting the picture.

***I also think it's good to remember that while you may not be offended by those who lampoon things that you believe deeply, that others may be.***

There's some validity there, but SE if we never post anything that offends anybody we will be silent. I accept the fact that sometimes some will take offense when none was intended. How many people were offended by Jesus. Not paralleling myself to Him, but He sure didn't avoid saying anything that someone might take offense over.

I choose to express my humor, it is a part of me. If my conscience bothers me in something I say or post, I will acknowledge it first to God and then to others.

Jesus couldn't have paid the “ransom” for our sins to the Father; you pay a ransom to a kidnapper, and the Father wasn't holding us hostage. No, it was the Evil One who had captured us, due to our voluntary involvement in sin. It cost Jesus his blood to enter Hades and set us free. That's the payment, or ransom, but it obviously isn't paid to the Father.

This is carrying a worthy metaphor to an illogical and repulsive extreme.

Satan has no "claim" on God, as if he is "owed" the price of Jesus' blood to set us free from bondage to sin. What Satan is "owed" is punishment for his wickedness in corrupting mankind.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an interesting discussion of the Atonement, and addresses fully the "rights of Satan" argument and St. Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo?".

Christ is foremost the archetype of the Paschal Lamb and of all sacrificial sin-offerings. These Jewish sacrafices were always made to God to pay the debt owed to God, a theology neatly summarized by their annual Day of Atonement.

Western Christians, on the other hand, who see sin as a private debt between an individual and God

Catholics see it having a dimension of offense against God, and disturbance of the social order. The offense against God is forgiven in confession. The disturbance in the social order is only forgiven by penitential acts or perfect charity. Since sin destroys charity, only charity can overcome its effects.

Orthodox and Catholics alike would do well to recall that in the early Church, well before the Great Schism, it was perfectly routine for penitents to have substantial tasks imposed on them as a condition of restoration to communion.

Hermann, I'm glad you referenced the Catholic Encyclopaedia article on Atonement, because I too found it most useful. As I recall however, it does not side definitively with Anselm. Notwithstanding the infinite merit appertaining to even the slightest suffering on the part of Christ, God in his perfect freedom, the article points out, is eternally capable of pardoning all human sin by a gratuitous act of mercy, without any need for the Crucifixion. In my opinion, the Sacrifice of Christ acting as Mediator for the sin of the world is not legal satisfaction but the very overthrow of that concept. God being perfect, He is insusceptible of injury and thus can never suffer any "lack" needing to be repaired or restored. As Logos Christ restores the world to right order. As Mediator, Christ intercedes for us with the Father; and being perfect Mediator, his perfect and complete intercession implies perfect and complete gift of self. It's in this sense that the Crucifixion is truly a sacrifice, not in the sense that it satisfies a debt. The Crucifixion is not restitution; it's revelation. By his kenotic Passion, the Son reveals the same unrestricted, loving gift of self that characterises the inner life of the Trinity: the Son's obediance of the Father and complete gift of self for love of the Father's created images and likeness is a window into the Trinitarian life that we're all called to share.

To my Orthodox friends, I want to point out that the Catholic Catechism is very clear on the nature of sin as not so much legal transgression as alienation. Conversion, not effective restitution, lies at the heart of our sacrament of reconciliation, for the plain reason that like the Eucharist, Pennance is a sacrament of communion. It's an ecclesial event, not a legal event; and though penitential acts are imposed on the penitent as a condition of his forgiveness, these exist not for God's sake (who needs nothing from us), for for the sinner's, whose need is to cooperate with the grace restoring him to communion with the Body of Christ.

Orthodox and Catholics alike would do well to recall that in the early Church, well before the Great Schism, it was perfectly routine for penitents to have substantial tasks imposed on them as a condition of restoration to communion.

Historical documents from Byzantium say otherwise.

for for the sinner's, whose need is to cooperate with the grace restoring him to communion with the Body of Christ.

A quite agreeable view....imo.

From somebody on the sidelines.... Pergatory is such a false doctrine... just like indulgences.