Posted on 12/11/2005 11:07:30 PM PST by jecIIny
Interesting piece of trivia, here, regarding the word charitoo:
The only other place in the Greek NT where charitoo is used -- Ephesians (1:6) ["for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved" -- the word "granted" is the word charitoo]. The Ephesians passage is clearly a reference to the remission of all (original and actual) sin.
I find it uniquely interesting that this word charitoo would be used only twice in the NT -- once, referring to the state of Christians -- the other, when the angel spoke to Mary.
Not a word therein contains "demigod", nor do any of them conflict with scripture.
If they don't, it's probably because you're used to living in republic with egalitarian pretenses. ;-)
But in an era when people addressed kings and queens in similarly flowery language, they wouldn't have thought it that unusual.
And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
That's D-R, anyway.
Does Elisabeth's words sound like those used for a fellow human being:
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Luk 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.
Luk 1:43 And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luk 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Luk 1:45 And blessed [is] she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.
Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luk 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Luk 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy [is] his name.
Luk 1:50 And his mercy [is] on them that fear him from generation to generation.
Luk 1:51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
Luk 1:52 He hath put down the mighty from [their] seats, and exalted them of low degree.
Luk 1:53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
Luk 1:54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of [his] mercy;
Luk 1:55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
That's baloney. Pope Leo the Great, a saint recognized by both the East AND the West, certainly did not "ignore" this canon that a few Greeks tried to sneak in. He expressly mentions it and overrode it. The Pope was adamant that it was not political might or favor that ruled the Church (which is what Constantinople was saying) but divine favor and instititution recognized by the early Church upon Peter. Rome realized that agreeing in principle to Constantinople's usurping of power from Alexandria would place its OWN power in jeopardy. The center of Christianity was not to be determined by the most powerful secular power, but by the divine choice of Jesus.
The Following is an excerpt on how Leo supposedly "ignored" the Greek attempt to usurp power from the other Apostolic Sees, based on political power. It is a bit long, but it fully explains that Rome did not "ignore" anything, on the contrary, received an apology and a retraction.
"The 28th canon of the council carries the matter much further. And all this seemingly petty squabbling for place between prelates, in the excited atmosphere of a General Council in 451, fifteen hundred years ago, still matters. What we are considering is, in fact, one of the fundamental acts from which derive the divisions to consider which the coming General Council seems principally summoned. Here is one beginning of troubles that have lasted for a thousand years or so, to the great detriment of religion, and of our common civilisation.
In this 28th canon the bishops begin by recalling the act of the council of 381, and they confirm it. They then speak of the see of Rome, and of how "the Fathers" always recognised its special privileges, as something due to that city's imperial state. "We therefore define and declare the same about the privileges of the see of Constantinople, New Rome. The city now honoured with the presence of the emperor and the senate, and which enjoys the same [state] privileges as the old royal Rome, should be as great as she in what relates to the church, and rank second to her." And for the future, all the (26) metropolitans of the three (civil) dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus are to be consecrated by the bishop of Constantinople--he is to be definitely their overlord. And likewise it is he who will consecrate the bishops of the churches among the barbarian peoples beyond the frontier.
The legates were not present at the session of October 31 when this canon was voted, nor the imperial commissioners. But the next day, Paschasinus protested strongly. He was answered that these were domestic affairs, in which it was thought the legates were not interested. Another of the legates said that the bishops had voted the canon under duress. But they denied this violently. He then said--it was the bishop of Ascoli, Lucentius--the canon went contrary to the relevant law of Nicaea. Upon which he was asked whether this matter came within the legates' mandate. To which the third legate replied trenchantly, by reading out the passage that bade the legates not to allow anything that violated what the holy fathers decreed (i.e., Nicaea) or that lessened the dignity of the Roman See. Should any bishop, relying on the importance of the capital, attempt any usurpation, he was to be opposed.
The commissioners decided that the previous declarations now in conflict should be produced. Paschasinus read the canon of Nicaea--in a text which opens with the words "That the Roman See has always held the first place." It was then read in Greek by one of the emperor's officials, and with it the canon of 381. The bishops were formally asked by the commissioners whether their votes had been forced. They unanimously answered they had been free, and various speakers explained that the new arrangement about the consecration of bishops merely stated in law what had been the practice now for some years. Eusebius of Dorylaeum--the "prosecutor" of Dioscoros, it will be remembered--then told of how he had read the canon of 381 to Leo when he was a refugee at the papal court, and that the pope had assented to it. (And, of course, in this very council Paschasinus had given the first place after the legates to Anatolios of Constantinople.) When the commissioners turned to the bishops who had not voted for the new canon, to ask their views, the metropolitan of Ancyra said that not wanting to do any more consecrations he had left it to the bishop of Constantinople to consecrate his suffragan the bishop of Gangra, but for himself he suspected that money played too great a part in consecrations done at the capital. Whereupon, as may be guessed, there was a really hot discussion, which the commissioners broke up by declaring the canon carried. The rights of the bishop of old Rome, they said, have been safeguarded, but it is only right that the bishop of New Rome should have the same rights and honours, and also these rights to consecrate in the three civil dioceses mentioned. And the bishops again applauded.
But the last word fell to the legates. "The Holy See," said Lucentius, "ought not to be basely treated while we look on. And therefore, all that was done yesterday, in our absence, to the prejudice of the canons and laws, we demand of your highnesses [this to the commissioners] to order that it be annulled. Otherwise, let this our appeal in law against the canon be attached to the minutes, that we may know what it is we must report to the apostolic bishop who is the first personage in the whole church, so that he may be able to pronounce sentence on the unjust act against his see, and on this overthrowing of the canon law." One of the bishops called out to the presiding officials, "We still agree with you." And they said, "The whole council approves our position." And with this rupture between the bishops and the pope the council came to an end.
The bishops, before they separated, addressed a letter to the pope. They were grateful, they said, that he had been faithful to the command given to the Apostles, "Teach ye all nations ... to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."[35] Five hundred and twenty of us were at the council, "and you led us as the head guides the limbs of the body." Dioscoros has been punished as a man deserved who in his madness had struck at him to whom the Lord had confided the care of His vineyard, the one whose mission it is to give unity to the church. They make the smoothest of references to their "confirmation of the canon" of 381; enacting their new canon, they say, in the persuasion that "since in you the apostolic light shines in all its splendour, you will often, with your customary care, see that Constantinople benefits from that brightness." They beg the pope to confirm this arrangement which they have presumed to think would please him, being confident that the head will allow to his children what is for their good.
The bishops, in this letter, have dropped the language about the imperial importance of the new city, and about recognition of the pope's primacy as related to the like importance of Rome. It is to him as primate because Peter's successor that they address their plea--the one sure concrete reality beneath their wealth of insinuating compliment.[35a] And with their letter they send the minutes of the council's proceedings. The legates also brought with them letters from the emperor and the bishop of Constantinople--a somewhat uneasy production, this last, from "the see of Constantinople to its father, your own Apostolic See."[36]
Leo's reply to Anatolios is grave. This council called to strengthen the faith seemed to you, he says, a useful opportunity to cause Alexandria the loss of its traditional second place, and Antioch its rank as third, so that, these put below you, all metropolitan bishops would lose their special privileges. As to the canon of 381, "this vote of some bishops or other, given (as you brag) sixty years ago now, and never notified to the Apostolic See by your predecessors--this affords no support to what you are doing." ... Dioscoros may have disgraced Alexandria, "but the bishops of a see are one thing, the see itself another."[37]
The emperor, congratulated on his share in bringing about this triumph of the true belief, is told of the sorrow felt at the news of Anatolios' usurpation. How prosperity has fanned his ambition! That the sacred guarantees of Nicaea should be jettisoned, and this new rank created, all to increase the importance of a single see, and that not an apostolic see. Let Anatolios be content with his see's imperial importance, for it is not possible to turn it into an apostolic see. Let him not covet more than his predecessors enjoyed. And let him keep to the rules,[38] if he does not wish to find himself cut off from the church universal. Everything done in contravention of the Nicaean rules "we dismiss as without legal effect.... By the authority of the blessed apostle Peter we quash it utterly by a general sentence."[39] Finally the pope replied to the council, March 21, 453. He renews, by this letter, the approbation already given by the legates to the council's execution of the task for which it was called--the case concerning the faith, the case for which alone the council, he reminds them, was called. As to the work which the bishops then took it upon themselves to do--the reorganisation of sees--the pope says he prefers not to know anything about it. For it violates "the inviolable canons of Nicaea." Whatever is not according to these is null and void.[40]
The emperor, distressed at the evident breach between the pope and the bishop of his capital, wrote to Rome, some months later, pleading for Anatolios (? November or December 453). Leo replied, and Marcian read the reply to the bishop. The pope's letter said that a reconciliation would be welcome, but that Anatolios must first "make satisfaction to the canons."[41] The only way to a peace and charity that are genuine is "by keeping to the Catholic faith and the canons of Nicaea." And Anatolios, after his interview with Marcian, wrote his submission to the pope (April 454). He declines all responsibility for the new canon which has exalted his see. He himself is a lover of peace and lowliness of life. It was the zeal of the clergy of Constantinople, it was the eastern bishops who worked this for their own profit. And, he goes on to say, "Whatever was thus done, all its worth and the confirmation of it was reserved to the authority of your holiness."[42] All this is so much hot air until you choose to ratify it!
The pope took the reply as made in good faith, and the matter closed with his writing to Anatolios that he looked to find in him a worthy successor of his great predecessors, and to find him a useful guardian against all attempts against the Catholic faith or the laws of Nicaea (May 29, 454). This was two years and seven months almost since, at Chalcedon, the bishops had voted the canon in the teeth of the legates' protests. The crisis was really closed that opened with the speech of Eusebius of Dorylaeum at the synod of November 448.
26. That is, as the crow flies. It is the modern Cankiri, fifty miles N.E. of Ankara (Turkey).
27. This successor to Flavian being himself an Alexandrian cleric.
28. Batiffol, as before, p. 546, n 1.
29. "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." Matt. 16:16.
30. For the text, Greek and Latin, see Denzinger, no. 148. Barry, no. 20, prints a translation.
31. For the text and a translation of these, see Schroeder.
32. The others were Ancyra (Ankara) 314, New Caesarea 315, Gangra 340 and Antioch 341; all Eastern councils, it will be noted.
33. The exarchs for the three (civil) dioceses concerned, Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, were the bishops of Heraclea, Ephesus, and Caesarea.
34. Thrace meant, roughly, European Turkey, Bulgaria, and the strip of Greek territory to the east of the island of Thasos. The bishops of Greece (the civil diocese of Achaia) and of the western Balkan lands (the civil diocese of Macedonia) were still directly subject to Rome. The pope's local agent for these sees was the bishop of Thessalonica.
35. Matt. 28:19.
35a. The bishops' letter is no. 98 in the collection of St. Leo's letters.
36. Anatolios' own words in this letter.
37. Aliud enim sunt sedes, aliud praesidentes. For the letter, Jaffe, no.483. The date is May 22, 452.
38. An allusion to the fact that Anatolios had gone so far as to consecrate one who is his superior in rank, the new bishop of apostolic Antioch, the third see in the church.
39. These last two quotations are from Leo's letter, of the same date, to the empress Pulcheria, joint ruler with Marcian, her husband. Ibid., 482.
40. Ibid., 490.
41. Satisfaciat canonibus, Jaffe, 504.
42. The letter of Anatolios is in the collection of St. Leo's letters, no. 132 (April 454). For the whole of this see Batiffol, as last, 562-81.
THE CHURCH IN CRISIS: A History of the General Councils: 325-1870 CHAPTER 4. The General Council of Chalcedon, 451
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun5.html
This categorically denies the Constantinoplian usurping of power from an Apostolic See - which it was not during Nicea. It is apparent that the Greeks in Constantinople were more concerned with power than the Will of God.
Regards
During the lifetime of the Apostles? Sure, I'll grant that. But the earliest known Marian prayer dates back to AD 180, which is pretty early. (The canon of the NT was in flux until around 400.)
Furthermore, Mary is mentioned only once in the Nicene Creed, and that was only in the affirmation of the Incarnation. If the IC and Assumption are so important, then where are they in the Creeds?
First of all, I wouldn't say that they are as important as the truths mentioned in the creeds. Also, remember that the Nicene creed, in particular, was composed in response to the Arian heresy. Not surprisingly, it concentrates on the articles of faith the Arians denied.
The IC required about a thousand years of reflection and theological development. It's noteworthy that St. Augustine specifically exempted Mary from his discussion of original sin, though.
All this explains is that the bishop of Rome interpreted thing differently which isn't surprising that's a dispute to this day.
What we need, is an actual translation of the canons agreed on at the councils, and to see whether they establish Constantinople as second, and whether they establish the creed was full and not subject to change or something to be added to or subtracted from at whim by the bishops.
What it denies is your assertion that Rome didn't do anything about the addition to the Chalcedon canon after the Roman legate left. They most certainly did. Leo, as I have shown, strived for and received a recanting of this most disgusting attempt to usurp power from other APOSTOLIC Sees, which Constantinople was NOT one! It took the invention of the St. Andrew legacy nearly 1000 years after his death to try to gain some sort of legitamcy to the false claim. During Chalcedon, no one considered Constantinople as an Apostolic See. It was surely a power play. Are you trying to deny that?
Regards
From NewAdvent.org
Second Eccumenical Council:
The Greeks recognize seven canons, but the oldest Latin versions have only four; the other three are very probably (Hefele) later additions.
The first canon is an important dogmatic condemnation of all shades of Arianism, also of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism.
The second canon renews the Nicene legislation imposing upon the bishops the observance of diocesan and patriarchal limits.
The fourth canon declares invalid the consecration of Maximus, the Cynic philosopher and rival of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as Bishop of Constantinople.
The famous third canon declares that because Constantinople is New Rome the bishop of that city should have a pre-eminence of honour after the Bishop of Old Rome. (The page continues and summarizes about Leo, but still accepts this as a canon)
Third Council:
Sixth Session
At the end of the sixth session, which dealt only with the case of two Nestorianizing priests, was made the famous declaration that no one must produce or compose any other creed than (para, proeter, "beyond" -- "contrary to"?) the Nicene, and that anyone who should propose any such to pagans, Jews, or heretics, who wished to be converted, should be deposed if a bishop or cleric, or anathematized if a layman.
My assertion? I copied and cited OrthodoxWiki.
The crux of my point was one that Constantinople was second amoung equals, and that the Nicene creed was not to be modified.
Both are verified in the Catholic interpretation of the councils. If it was a power play why would the church not have done away with that canon same as the other 3 canons the greeks have but the Romans do not?
Well I could tell you stories - that I have seen happen, but if you want to hear them, let me know.
He's not a great choice overall to represent us, imo.
But I can personally attest to icons of her dating to the 4th-7th centuries, still present in ancient monasteries and churches in Georgia. I guess it depends on how early you want to consider the church at that time period.
I've heard on Orthodox mailing lists of people visiting out of town churches and experiencing ethnic discrimination. I've visited a fair number of Orthodox parishes and never experienced this (on the other hand I'm American but speak Russian and my wife is Russian, and we usually go to Russian, or apparently non-ethnic parishes).
I did here our priest once complain about some group of folks (not sure if it was which but it wasn't Russian) who, at a picnic for multiple Orthodox churches, were annoying because they only wanted to talk to people who spoke their language.
She also obeyed God where Eve had rejected God, she is critically important scripturally in terms of mankind returning to God.
I can't figure out your post. In the holy word of G-D? What letter is suppose to be in the middle??? I can't solve this puzzle, not everyone wants to play "wheel of fortune".
see The Name of God
b'shem Y'shua
The burden of proof is on you to show that anything in this hymn requires being interpreted as referring to Mary as demigod.
I'm just a little tired of the way you Protestant anti-Catholics leap to conclusions with texts you are not familiar with. Those of us who pray this daily know very well to whom it is addressed--a woman, the first to believe in Christ (because she was the first to know about the Incarnation), the first believer, the first Christian and thus our mother in the faith.
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.