Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
"True, but to establish your point that Mary was not a perpetual virgin"
And you have to prove that they were not Mary's sons to prove this "perpetual virgin" theory. The evidence is stronger that they were her sons than that they were Joseph's just by the fact that when they are mentioned in the gospels it is always with her and they could never be called as His brothers if they were not Mary's sons.
Peter as a symbol of the church I can buy, because 2 chapters later Christ gives the power of binding and loosing to much more than just Peter. Peter's primacy is in the office of apostle, not in himself. Peter wasn't made the head of the church, but as an apostle played a very special role in the foundation of the church. Finally, Augustine here is not referring to Peter as the Rock to which Christ as referring. Yes, Peter is A Rock, but re-read it and see Augustine shows that it is Peter's CONFESSION that is the Rock that Christ, THE TRUE ROCK, will build his church upon.
Thank you Agrarian, much obliged for your input. For everone's information, the Slavonic word associated with Bogoroditsa (Theotokos) is prechistaya, a ligature of two words pre (asuperlative such as above or beyond) and chistaya (fem. form of adjective "clean" or "pure"). Thus, it is correctly translated into English as "most pure" or "immaculate."
At what point the Theotokos reached a state of theosis such that it was impossible for her sin I don't know
Actually, Greek Orth. Arch Diocese [GOARCH] site says:
This is the first time that I have encountered any Eastern Orthodox reference to her purity, and – more importantly – her suitability to become a 'worthy Morther of God' being assigned to the moment of Annunciation (even though this is guardedly attenuated as a "speculation" by unnamed Church Fathers)!
Absolutely false! In Hebrew/Aramaic as well as in Greek, but also in Serbian and other languages of that region (to this day) they could be called His brothers if they were only His half-brothers, or first cousins.
I believe A8 already made this disticntion. But they are never identified as "Mary children," as Christ is undoubtedly identified as "Mary's Son."
Why would you assume that? The Keys are described as the keys to the kindgom if heaven. The power to bind and loose is listed separately in Chapter 16. In Chapter 18 the keys are not mentioned, yet the authority to bind and loose is given. While the two are related, there is no warrant from scripture to equate the two.
not the centralized organization, but the body of all believers
I always wondered where in the scripture do people find that strange ecclesiology. The Catholic view is that the boundary of the Church is baptism. It is therefore visible Church; there is not such thing as Church invisible. The apostolic hierarchy of the Church is unseparable from the entire Church. The text you cite in Matthew 18 is clear that the Church, and not the fellowship of believers is the final authority in any dispute.
It can not be proven that Peter was ever in Rome and his epistles, for someone who is supposedly the 1st Pope are somewhat narrow in focus.
It sems at this point beyond doubt that he was (see St. Peter and Rome). Peter's letter establish the apostolic authority with which he and the rest of the apostles speak. This is the fundamental task of the papacy, to preserve a single deposit of faith free from fracture.
if he were the first Pope, why not mention it?
The word "Pope" is of later extraction. His exceptional authority is mentioned in the Keys passage and in several others. It is true however that the power and the role of the papacy grew in post-patristic period as the heresies were combatted. Much of the papal power is derived from the Pope's role as patriarch of the Latin Church, since for most people today the Latin Church is THE Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church as a whole has a far more conciliar structure than the Latin Church.
Two reasons. First, Matthew's focus is on the virgin birth of Christ, not on Mary and Joseph's relations. Second, the knowledge of the said relations is of intimate nature. It simply would not be known to even the closest friends of the family.
Unless Mary was God's wife, which she wasn't
In fact, the Church does give Our Lady the title Spouse of the Holy Spirit, with a good reason.
I don't understand the rest of your post, except to say that the precise physiological manner in which Jesus was born is indeed a matter of theological speculation and is not defined diogamtically by the Church.
Thank you for saying that. Indeed, from scripture, it cannot be argued otherwise.
But is it accurate to say so? Maybe I misunderstand the dogma, or the baptism, or original sin, but it seems to me that Mary at conception was in the exact same condition a newly baptized Christian is: she is free from original sin. The timing is different, the sacramental water is absent, but the human end product is the same.
Her subsequent fullness of grace (=sinlessness) is due to her perfectly formed free will, not to the Immaculate Conception.
I will appreciate your comments. I think more is made out of the Immacualte Conception than is logically there.
This is, of course, a perfectly valid concern that better schooled Catholics share. But on the other hand, we cannot accept or reject theological truths just for pastoral reasons.
It is a rare thing to watch someone to repeat the false statement thoroughly refuted on this very thread another time as if it is just occurring to him.
Just because you say there is no warrant doesn't make it so. Why would I assume that there is? Because it is part of the same thought: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. --Matthew 16:19; 18:18
The keys are Christ's authority. THey are the authority to bind and loose - and they are something that Jesus gave the whole church (all believers).
2nd, it is NOT strange ecclesiology to believe that the CHURCH is the body of believers. It is Scripture. An organizational structure, be it a centralized hierarchy like the Vatican or the local church is a temporal institution. Christ's CHURCH, His Bride, lives forever. The fellowship IS the Church. Temporal leaders, be they bishops, Pastors, whatever are still subject to the body of believers. Look at what Jesus said in Matt 18 regarding forgiveness. If your brother sin against you, you are supposed to do things in a certain order 1) confront him one on one 2) Bring a witness and if he still doesn't repent 3) bring him before the church - the church being the local body of believers.
The Corinthians dealt with their erring brother not by going through an ecclesiastical order, but by dealing with it as a local church body themselves.
So seeing the Church as separate from the fellowship of believers is a bit of a brainwash. You have been taught this by the ecclesiastical order and you are used to it making sense to you. You're having trouble seeing it any other way. I understand that. To many protestants it makes less sense.
During the initial founding of the church, there were times where there would be councils to decide some point of doctrine. You still had apostles back then too. The church of Christ, however, is His bride. It isn't an institution. It is a living organism.
See these verses below in support that it is the body of believers...
Acts 5:11
Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Acts 8:3
But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
Acts 9:31
Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord
# Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
There are many others. But it is clear hear that the Church is not a centralized structure headed by Peter residing in Rome.
As to Peter's being in Rome, I've said he probably was at some point because it is indeed likely that he was martyred by Nero. But where is the Scripture that says such? It doesn't exist. Therefore the claim that it is "beyond doubt" is false. It is not beyond doubt.
Irenaeus is a fair source on your side of the case, but you have to remember he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, so Irenaeus is a 3rd generation Christian. He wasn't an eyewitness. But giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point (just for arguments sake, I'm not saying I buy that we have historical proof for Peter in Rome) Irenaeus refers to Peter's missionary efforts in Rome- not his papacy (and yes, I know the term was invented some time later though the Bishop of Rome was active early on- even though his supremacy wasn't recognized until later). So, all we have is that Peter MAY have evangelized the Romans. So far we are batting 0 for 2. Not in Scripture. Not in contemporary/earliest records.
Paul wrote to the church. Does'nt make mention of Peter. Knowing the timing of Roman's writing, it is highly doubtful that he wouldn't have greeted Peter were Peter not the Bishop there. It is argued that Peter wasn't bishop at that particular time. Okay. Whatever. He apparently wasn't at any other time either though he may have been active working with the believers there.
What the Catholic church is asking us to believe is that in Matthew 16, Christ called Peter the Rock upon which he would build his church establishing Peter's primacy above all other apostles. We are then asked to ignore the fact that nowhere else in all of Scripture is Peter referred to as the head of Christ's church on earth. All of the New Testament letters which were written at the time of Peter's ministry fail to mention Peter in the least bit as head of the church. A leader in the church, not disputed. Head, disputed.
Peter, like Mary, is a wonderful Christian for us to study because there are so many things we can learn from them. The vast majority of the doctrinal books, however, were written by Paul. Peter writes to encourage persecuted Christians. Paul writes on meatier areas of doctrine. Peter is not show as head in Jerusalem in Acts 15 (James appears to be). In fact, beyond Pentecost, Peter's role is somewhat tame compared to his role in the gospels.
Back to Acts 15 for a second, you have Peter speaking to the apostles and elders. He stands to speak of how God chose to use him, Peter, to reach the Gentiles. But his is not a keynote. It is after much discussion. He is giving his put on the matter. But he isn't making any decision. Next, Paul and Barnabus share what God did through them and the "whole assembly" was silent listening. Finally, James speaks. When he speaks, he does so as one with authority. It definately appears that James is the chosen leader of this assembly, not Peter. He says "9"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God..." But even there, It wasn't the Apostles and Elders that made the final decision alone. It was the apostles elders with the whole church who voted on the matter and put the plan into action. Again, while there is organization in the body - the body is not an organization. It is an organism.
"Two reasons. First, Matthew's focus is on the virgin birth of Christ, not on Mary and Joseph's relations.
Matthew's focus was on their relations. Notice Matthew was talking about Joseph taking Mary home for the first time and was pointing out that they never knew each other until the birth.
"Second, the knowledge of the said relations is of intimate nature. It simply would not be known to even the closest friends of the family.
No it is not. It would most likely result in another birth. Bros and sisters are mentioned.
Given the fact that Matthew knew them, It's very possible that their were other children and they were referred to as bros. and/or sisters. That could be the reason Matthew limited the "until" to the point of birth. Matthew may very well have know the other kids.
" In fact, the Church does give Our Lady the title Spouse of the Holy Spirit, with a good reason."
That would make her God's wife, which she isn't. It would also make her Son, her husband, which He isn't. It's enough to say that she was full of the Holy Spirit. I consider that her person, or self was like the Holy Spirit. She was not however married to Him.
"the precise physiological manner in which Jesus was born is indeed a matter of theological speculation and is not defined diogamtically by the Church."
It's good that the Church didn't stamp the light through the window thing, but that was one of the complaints in the article. I don't believe it. John never mentioned it and the only ones that would have known are Mary and Joseph. Mary might have told John. Since there is zero evidence for it, and no evidence that their lives were otherwise eased, the claim is pure invention.
You did not answer the question. It was fairly asked. It is a simple question about Greek.
What Greek word would I use if I were to talk of your brother?
So far as children of Mary is concerned, there are passages that suggest Mary accompanied Jesus' brothers and sisters.
We can deal with that in a few ways:
1. They are Mary's children.
2. They are Joseph's children by a different marriage either before or after his marriage to Mary.
3. They "possibly" could be cousins based on that minor usage of "brother" to mean kinfolk.
I've been honest with you. Your turn.
I agree. It was a simple dictionary question.
You're right. It's one of the possibilities. I think the context rules it out, but it should be included. Thanks.
That is not true.
And you have to prove that they were not Mary's sons to prove this "perpetual virgin" theory. The evidence is stronger that they were her sons than that they were Joseph's just by the fact that when they are mentioned in the gospels it is always with her
The Catholic Church is not bound your Protestant invention of 'sola scriptura'. We have the testimony of the fathers and the councils:
The Liturgy of St. James [the Just] calls her the "ever-virgin Mary".
Tertullian tells us of the "Antidicomarianites" who developed out of the Ebionites. The Ebionites claimed that Jesus was the natural child of Joseph and Mary. The Antidicomarianites claimed that Mary gave birth to other children. They denied the formula "ever-Virgin Mary" used in the Greek and Roman Liturgies.
The Acts of Peter of Alexandria (bishop from 300-311) refer to Mary as "mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary".
Aphraates (who died roughly in the 330s) affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity.
Athanasius (born c. 296; died 2 May, 373) in his Discourse Against the Arians, says, "He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin"
Ephanius in 374 AD says that Christ was "born of holy Mary ever-virgin".
St. Jerome wrote his tract, "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius" in 383 AD.
Jovinianus was condemned as heretic in 390 AD (by Pope Siricius at a synod held at Rome) for denying, among other things, the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jovinianus was subsequently condemned by St. Ambrose (bishop of Milan), for the same reasons.
Siricius (392 AD) writes to Anysius (bishop of Thessalonica) and tells him that Anysius has "rightly abhorred" the notion that "from the same virginal womb, from which according to the flesh Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth."
The Account of St. John the theologian of the falling asleep of the Holy Mother of God (400 AD) calls her "ever-virgin Mary".
Augustine, in his work "Of Holy Virginity" (401 AD) holds the position that Mary remained a virgin. (See also his lib. I contra Julian., ii)
Pope Leo I (bishop from 440-461 AD) refers to Mary as "blessed Mary ever Virgin".
The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) refers to her as the "blessed and ever Virgin Mary".
John II (533-535) refers to Mary as "ever virgin".
The Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) calls her "the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God"
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (date unknown) says that she is "ever-virgin".
The Lateran Council of 649 refers to Mary as "holy Mary, ever virgin and immaculate".
Canon 1 of the Council in Trullo (692 AD) calls her the "immaculate ever-virgin".
John the Damascene (b. 676, d. 754-787) calls her "holy ever-virgin Mother"
The Second Council of Nicea (787 AD) calls her "holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God".
-A8
Just because one would use the word 'adelphoi' to talk of siblings (from the same parents) does not mean that 'adelphoi' can only mean 'siblings from the same parents', especially since there are different senses of the term, as St. Jerome points out, not just as used in Greek, but also and especially as used in Aramaic.
-A8
LOL!!!!! That's a good point, Harley.
Matt 46-50
"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
John 7:5 also says that Jesus' bros doubted Him. John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." I really doubt John meant cousins, because of the emphasis on the closeness of those who didn't believe Him. John the Baptist was His cousin, of course He believed Him!
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.