Comon sense will tell you why Virgin Mary had no other Child but Jesus

[Good_Fella]

The Council didn’t promulgate perpetual virginity into doctrine as far as I can tell (I just did a word search of the decrees from the Council & find no such act). They only promulgated the idea that Mary is God bearer (or mother of God) – nothing else as far as I can tell. Moreover, when you look at the councils explanation they did explain it quite well (they were careful to acknowledge the eternal existence of Christ for instance).

The first Marian dogma, Mary invoked as the Mother of God, was declared by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. The Council consisted of 200 bishops and was presided over by Cyril of Alexandria, who served as the representative of Pope Celestine 1. Observe the declaration of the Council:

*Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence in the flesh ( for the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God’, and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things). but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb.

…1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God made flesh), let him be anathema (the first of twelve anathemas).*

Mary is invoked as Theotokos, which means “God bearer” or “Mother of God”, since she bore the Son of God in her womb and he took his flesh from her. Jesus is a divine Person; mothers bear individual persons, not human natures. So if Mary isn’t the mother of our Lord, then Jesus could not have been a divine person who assumed a human nature through her. Maybe the heretic Nestorious was right after all, that the body of Jesus was coinhabited by two distinct persons: one divine and the other human. Thus Mary would then be the mother of the human person inhabiting Jesus’ body. But we believe such a notion amounts to heresy. Jesus is one divine person, our Lord, and Mary is his mother.

The dogma of the Theotokos is confirmed by the scriptures:

*“Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. 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.” *
Luke 1, 31,35

“And how does this happen, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Luke 1, 43

“She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
Matthew 1, 21

They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage.
Matthew 2, 10-11

Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel (God with us).
Isaiah 7, 14

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is the Church’s second Marian dogma, declared so by Pope Martin 1 in union with the world’s bishops at the Lateran Synod in Rome, October, A.D. 649:

If anyone does not in acoord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was begotten of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.

We certainly do have a final doctrinal decision reached by Pope Martin and the Council in the above declaration. There is a definition, however limited, but more important an anathema attached. Catholics are obligated to give their sacred assent to the teaching of the virginity of Mary ante partem, in partu, post partem. The declaration of the Lateran Synod was reiterated and further articulated by the Council of Trent and Vatican ll Council.

PAX

 

[sola_scriptura]

The first Marian dogma, Mary invoked as the Mother of God, was declared by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. The Council consisted of 200 bishops and was presided over by Cyril of Alexandria, who served as the representative of Pope Celestine 1. Observe the declaration of the Council:

*Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence in the flesh ( for the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God’, and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things). but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb.

…1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God made flesh), let him be anathema (the first of twelve anathemas).*

Nothing I dispute so far (and this is exactly what I read when I looked at the language from the COE).

Mary is invoked as Theotokos, which means “God bearer” or “Mother of God”, since she bore the Son of God in her womb and he took his flesh from her. Jesus is a divine Person; mothers bear individual persons, not human natures. So if Mary isn’t the mother of our Lord, then Jesus could not have been a divine person who assumed a human nature through her. Maybe the heretic Nestorious was right after all, that the body of Jesus was coinhabited by two distinct persons: one divine and the other human. Thus Mary would then be the mother of the human person inhabiting Jesus’ body. But we believe such a notion amounts to heresy. Jesus is one divine person, our Lord, and Mary is his mother.

The dogma of the Theotokos is confirmed by the scriptures:

*“Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. 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.” *
Luke 1, 31,35

“And how does this happen, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Luke 1, 43

“She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
Matthew 1, 21

They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage.
Matthew 2, 10-11

Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel (God with us).
Isaiah 7, 14

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is the Church’s second Marian dogma, declared so by Pope Martin 1 in union with the world’s bishops at the Lateran Synod in Rome, October, A.D. 649:

If anyone does not in acoord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was begotten of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.

We certainly do have a final doctrinal decision reached by Pope Martin and the Council in the above declaration. There is a definition, however limited, but more important an anathema attached. Catholics are obligated to give their sacred assent to the teaching of the virginity of Mary ante partem, in partu, post partem. The declaration of the Lateran Synod was reiterated and further articulated by the Council of Trent and Vatican ll Council.

PAX

The Lateran Councils were not properly convened ecumenical councils. They all occurred after the schism (and are not recognized by the EOC).

The only ecumenical councils I reject is the Seventh and Fifth. The Seventh (re-instituting veneration of icons) overturned an earlier ecumenical council (at Hieria) & went against apostolic teachings & the Fifth was convened by a Roman emperor (Justinian) & the bishop of Rome objected to its findings (and hence I do not view Origen as a heretic).

 

[RisenAgain]

this is why i refered to this thinking as wordly…to think that normal people (monks/priests/nuns) who denied themselves to God are more elevated spiritually than Joseph and Mary who witnessed the divine intervention of God , the Incarnation, and who held in their hands the Word incarnated into Mary is a reflection of a wordly thinking where physical needs simply cannot be offered for more elevated truth…but after all, this is my opinion influenced by the Eastern spiritualism of a church that existed in the first centuries …i guess i must be an American born into the 20th century to have a spirituality based on normal physical realities…

Well - being a Catholic, I wish I could agree with you ; and yet I don’t see it as you do. Please be careful with setting a double standard for us Catholics, because we then have to defend these positions, and will be exposed for our inconsistency.

First we say that the husband /wife relationship is “worldly” and that this worldly relationship was pushed into the background and onto the back -burner, as Joseph refused to (or chose not to) fulfill his marital duties to his wife, by abstaining from the sexual union that is necessary to the wedding bond.

We say that this was necessary in order to honor the spiritual and divine purity of the incarnation . . . this can be logical; but is it necessary? It is certainly not consistent with our own Catholic theology. Here is an example.

Jesus is the Creator of all men and women - even Mary - no?

Yet this spiritual and eternal relationship is often eclipsed in Catholic theology by the contemplation of the fleshly mother/son relationship between them. Is this not inconsistent?

We as Catholics have to be consistent - We should either say that worldly and fleshly relationships have priority over spiritual and divine relationships - or the other way around. We can’t have it whichever way seems convenient to us.

In one breath we shout “worldly!” concerning the Husband/wife relationship of Mary and Joseph, and in the next breath we shout “not worldly!” concerning the mother/child relationship between Mary and Jesus. This is a double standard!

We as Catholics are digging ourselves into a contradiction with this type of argumentation. Coming from someone who cares - Let’s wake up! Let’s use our brains a little more, and stop slacking off - resting on our corrupted logic!

Be consistent!

 

[churchcamefirst]

Again RisenAgain says “but being a Catholic”, you speak for yourself. Do not speak for me as a Catholic when you say “we Catholics”.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Risen - you state: “We as Catholics have to be consistent - We should either say that worldly and fleshly relationships have priority over spiritual and divine relationships - or the other way around. We can’t have it whichever way seems convenient to us…In one breath we shout “worldly!” concerning the Husband/wife relationship of Mary and Joseph, and in the next breath we shout “not worldly!” concerning the mother/child relationship between Mary and Jesus. This is a double standard!..resting on our corrupted logic!”

Please don’t speak for me! We don’t teach this. It may be how you perceive things in your own spirituality, but not mine. Read the Theology of the Body! And a few other things before you pronouce from the living room chair how we as catholics think!

This is a slur on not only religious, but married couples who are living faithfully! Pray the Lord uncloud your thinking!

Sorry if I come on strong but it seemed rather odd that you would see the Church as teaching that things of the flesh are somehow corrupt/worldly! Remember the holy couple who gave birth to Mary! The fecundity of faithful married life brings forth the Church! Want another good example, look at the parents of St. Therese, the Little Flower.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Good_Fella]

The Lateran Councils were not properly convened ecumenical councils. They all occurred after the schism (and are not recognized by the EOC).

The only ecumenical councils I reject is the Seventh and Fifth. The Seventh (re-instituting veneration of icons) overturned an earlier ecumenical council (at Hieria) & went against apostolic teachings & the Fifth was convened by a Roman emperor (Justinian) & the bishop of Rome objected to its findings (and hence I do not view Origen as a heretic).

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an official doctrine of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths. The Lateran Synod in 649 was not a general ecumenical council, but it was presided over by Pope Martin 1. Meanwhile the synod was convened about 400 years before the great schism between the East and West. But the schism is of no importance since both faiths hold the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity ante partem, in partu, and post partem.

PAX

 

[sola_scriptura]

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an official doctrine of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths. The Lateran Synod in 649 was not a general ecumenical council, but it was presided over by Pope Martin 1. Meanwhile the synod was convened about 400 years before the great schism between the East and West. But the schism is of no importance since both faiths hold the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity ante partem, in partu, and post partem.

PAX

The Lateran Council’s were only “local councils” and not ecumenical (as you point out). As far as I know only ecumenical councils (not local councils) enjoy the notion of infalliblity within the EOC.

Papal infallibility wasn’t made official until 1870 – hence, local councils (without the representation of the full episcopate), even if signed off on by the reigning Pope, aren’t to my knowledge considered infallible by the EOC.

If you have a source link to an “EOC” document proving otherwise I’d certainly be interested in looking at it.

I don’t dispute the fact that most within the EOC view Mary as having been a perpetual virgin. Although I personally believe if Mary were a perpetual virgin then Joseph must have brought children into the marriage (since the counter arguments IMO do violence to the text of scripture), I don’t discount the possibility all together (rather I simply don’t view this idea as important to our faith, nor will I follow Rome down its road of post hoc theology – moreover, I cite the absence of a true Apostolic source for this idea & therefore in light of the revelations we do have from scripture, albeit scant, IMO the better view is that she wasn’t a perpetual virgin).

However, the EOC simply does not endorse or follow your doctrine of sacred and ordinary magisterium. Hence changes to doctrine cannot occur as the result of popular opinion (that eventually permeate into the ranks of the clergy and ultimately the church leadership). This is, IMO, how much of RCC Marian dogma was created. Again, perpetual virginity is the least of my concerns with RCC Mariology. The view did exist for a long time (even most of the early reformers held it). So even though I question the doctrine I don’t find it necessarily heretical (although I do cite the problems inherent in the notion that Mary & Joseph did not enjoy a normal marriage).

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not EOC. However, I only have one strong objection to EOC doctrine, which is the use of icons (which is official doctrine – enumerated by the Seventh Ecumenical Council). The church at one time held a contrary view (although the council that initiated the prohibition on use of icons was, I concede, an invalid council because it was convened by a Byzantine Emperor).

No one will tell me venerating a painting is important to my faith – the very thought is absurd. I know what the justifications are & while I don’t necessarily find them heretical I do think it’s sort of philosophical sophism (wrought from the cultural desire of the Greco-Roman people to have statutes and paintings to venerate in some way).

They were an artistic people (perhaps the finest artists the world has ever had – IMO nothing has come close to matching the Italian Renaissance in terms of art). They were also very philosophical (particularly the Greeks). So when someone tells me they didn’t conflate their own culture and long held way of life into Christianity – well I simply know better. There was no Apostolic intention to replace the Greco-Roman gods with saints, which if you do a careful comparison between saintly patronage and the way the pagan gods were worshiped you will find simply too many similarities to ignore. So you’re just not going to sell me on that one.

 

[Good_Fella]

The Lateran Council’s were only “local councils” and not ecumenical (as you point out). As far as I know only ecumenical councils (not local councils) enjoy the notion of infalliblity within the EOC.

Papal infallibility wasn’t made official until 1870 – hence, local councils (without the representation of the full episcopate), even if signed off on by the reigning Pope, aren’t to my knowledge considered infallible by the EOC.

If you have a source link to an “EOC” document proving otherwise I’d certainly be interested in looking at it.

I don’t dispute the fact that most within the EOC view Mary as having been a perpetual virgin. Although I personally believe if Mary were a perpetual virgin then Joseph must have brought children into the marriage (since the counter arguments IMO do violence to the text of scripture), I don’t discount the possibility all together (rather I simply don’t view this idea as important to our faith, nor will I follow Rome down its road of post hoc theology – moreover, I cite the absence of a true Apostolic source for this idea & therefore in light of the revelations we do have from scripture, albeit scant, IMO the better view is that she wasn’t a perpetual virgin).

However, the EOC simply does not endorse or follow your doctrine of sacred and ordinary magisterium. Hence changes to doctrine cannot occur as the result of popular opinion (that eventually permeate into the ranks of the clergy and ultimately the church leadership). This is, IMO, how much of RCC Marian dogma was created. Again, perpetual virginity is the least of my concerns with RCC Mariology. The view did exist for a long time (even most of the early reformers held it). So even though I question the doctrine I don’t find it necessarily heretical (although I do cite the problems inherent in the notion that Mary & Joseph did not enjoy a normal marriage).

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not EOC. However, I only have one strong objection to EOC doctrine, which is the use of icons (which is official doctrine – enumerated by the Seventh Ecumenical Council). The church at one time held a contrary view (although the council that initiated the prohibition on use of icons was, I concede, an invalid council because it was convened by a Byzantine Emperor).

No one will tell me venerating a painting is important to my faith – the very thought is absurd. I know what the justifications are & while I don’t necessarily find them heretical I do think it’s sort of philosophical sophism (wrought from the cultural desire of the Greco-Roman people to have statutes and paintings to venerate in some way).

They were an artistic people (perhaps the finest artists the world has ever had – IMO nothing has come close to matching the Italian Renaissance in terms of art). They were also very philosophical (particularly the Greeks). So when someone tells me they didn’t conflate their own culture and long held way of life into Christianity – well I simply know better. There was no Apostolic intention to replace the Greco-Roman gods with saints, which if you do a careful comparison between saintly patronage and the way the pagan gods were worshiped you will find simply too many similarities to ignore. So you’re just not going to sell me on that one.

Papal infallibilty was ‘defined’ as a dogma in 1870. The doctrine of the Trinity was ‘defined’ as a dogma at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. But the Church still believed in the Trinity before then.

If you don’t believe me that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church, then do some research on your own. Personally, I don’t care what you choose to believe. And please stay on topic and spare us the verbose anti- Catholic rhetoric. Anyway, the Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church find most of their influence from the teachings of Eastern Catholicism before the schism in the Patristic period.

The last time I walked into a Presbyterian church, it felt no different than being in a dry lecture hall or a conference room. Icons of Jesus and Mary, crucifixes, and stained glass windows make a big difference. I felt alienated from God when I was in that church and had to rush out quickly. The sensation I felt bordered on nausea. How do you feel about keeping a photo of your mother in your wallet?

 

[RisenAgain]

Again RisenAgain says “but being a Catholic”, you speak for yourself. Do not speak for me as a Catholic when you say “we Catholics”.

Ok so when I say that “We Catholics should be consistent” you want me to exclude you? No problem then - I should say from now on that “I am the only Catholic who should be consistent” and the rest of the Catholics on this forum should continue to be inconsistent- especiallu *churchcamefirst *because they are more comfortable with not using their brains.

Does that make you feel any better?

C’mon - you gotta be kidding. What we need as Catholics is to tighten up our logic and our theology - otherwise, we only prove ourselves to be as inconsistent as we claim Protestants are!

So until we manage to untie all these knots in our own theology - we are better off in prayer and in diligent study; so that we might be a contribution to the Catholic Church, instead of a carbon-copy of those who went before us. These are new times - and new times call for constant re-examination of arguments that have served their cause, but are now being revealed to be lacking. If God’s Church is truly the Catholic Church - then he will certainly continue to raise up faithful men and women who will bring the Church into a more fuller understanding of divine revelation.

Think about how our Church openly and vehemently condemned the heliocentrism of Galileo, and then later on, realized that she needed to “reform” her position! Truth is constantly being revealed to new generations - and I am sorry, but from what I see, we are moving into this generation completely un-equipped. This is mainly because we are too afraid to examine our own beliefs, and scrutinize our own logic.

I am sorry to say, but these double standards have got to go!

 

[RisenAgain]

Actually, it’s much simplier than that to prove Jesus had no siblings. Jesus is the only Son of God. Mary is the Mother of God. How could she have any other children if Jesus is the only Son?

Sorry - but take it from a fellow Catholic; You need to re-think the logic of your syllogism. Why do Catholics have a hard time simply calling Mary the mother of Jesus? The title “Mother of God” was only brought into the Church to prove the divinity of Christ - not to add a permanent title to his mother.

Your syllogism is faulty: for this would be the logical outcome of your equation:

Jesus is the only Son of God

Mary is the Mother of God

Therefore Mary is the Grandmother of Jesus!

C’mon - think!

Besides, the Bible goes on to say that Jesus is the “First-born among many brethren” - those who are “born of God” are now sons and daughters of God. So your logic fails if when we carry this connection over to Mary. Please think of another way to communicate her perpetual virginity - otherwise it is better to say nothing at all. It is posts like yours that give our Protestant brethren reasons to shake their heads at our illogical arguments.

Tighten up!!

Mary is blessed - true, but we ought not to be arguing over her!

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for the redemption of your own soul!

 

[churchcamefirst]

Again, RisenAgain claims “take it from me a Catholic”… Can’t you start off any posts without saying you are Catholic? Almost sounds like you are in disguise here.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Papal infallibilty was ‘defined’ as a dogma in 1870. The doctrine of the Trinity was ‘defined’ as a dogma at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. But the Church still believed in the Trinity before then.

If you don’t believe me that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an official doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church, then do some research on your own. Personally, I don’t care what you choose to believe. And please stay on topic and spare us the verbose anti- Catholic rhetoric. Anyway, the Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church find most of their influence from the teachings of Eastern Catholicism before the schism in the Patristic period.

The last time I walked into a Presbyterian church, it felt no different than being in a dry lecture hall or a conference room. Icons of Jesus and Mary, crucifixes, and stained glass windows make a big difference. I felt alienated from God when I was in that church and had to rush out quickly. The sensation I felt bordered on nausea. How do you feel about keeping a photo of your mother in your wallet?

Sorry we don’t have enough art and sculptures for you? Indeed we have none (for the most part even our stained glass windows isn’t adorned with any imagines – just stained glass soldered together). That’s how we like it. I guess we feel that since God is inside of us we really need no extrinsic tools to help us “feel” His presence …

As far as the EOC view – I’ve already studied the issue to my satisfaction & like you I guess it really doesn’t matter one way or the other?

 

[GailMac]

Well, since there seems to be much ink split back and forth about councils and definitions and dogmas and such, I will remind folks that when the Church finds it necessary to take such measures it is because it needs to. It isn’t announcing anything NEW when it does so. It is correcting errors in the thinking of some who have fallen away and guiding those in error back to the harbor of faith and communion. It seems some folks take a council of any nature and try to make it seem as if the Church is somehow adding to our beliefs or bringing new “revelations” to the faithful. This isn’t so. This is a total misunderstanding of the very reasons for councils and such.

What happens when such things occur is simply that there are too many folks dis-believing and arguing things they shouldn’t be and the Church must act to correctly enunciate the faith and make sure the faithful know what is the Truth about certain matters. It is to correct errors. That is one of the ways she guards the deposit of faith and ensures that errors don’t spread and end. The purpose of councils and their enunciations is to clear the air, not start arguments. It ends them. Or at least it is supposed to.

Peace,

Gail

 

[Good_Fella]

Sorry we don’t have enough art and sculptures for you?.. That’s how we like it. I guess we feel that since God is inside of us we really need no extrinsic tools to help us “feel” His presence …

You seem to be unaware that the Lateran synod was convened in Rome by Pope Martin 1 to condemn the Monothelite heresy, a seventh century Byzantine doctrine. This doctrine held the teaching of two distinct natures in Christ as defined by the Council of Chalcedon (A.D.451) but strayed in declaring that Christ had only one will or mode of activity (energia). The Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (681) did likewise condemn this heresy and ratified Pope Martin’s declaration that Christ had two wills, the human will being subjected to his divine will. Until then the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine church embraced Monothelitism with the support of the emperor out of political expediency. The Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were also Monothelite at the time which explains their absence at the Lateran Synod.

The Synod, which consisted of 105 bishops ( of Italy, Sicily, Sarnia, and Africa with the inclusion of other quarters) ex-communicated the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople and condemned Emperor Constans ll. So naturally the Lateran Synod could not technically be a general council with the absence of the Byzantine Episcopacy and representatives of the other Holy Sees, who had embraced and persisted in what was eventually declared a heresy by the Council of Constantinople lll in 681. All the major heresies sprung in the Eastern churches. Those Eastern bishops who refused to embrace unorthodox teachings appealed to the Bishop of Rome for his decisive judgment and action.

“For he [Pope Sixtus] wrote what was in accord with the holy synod [Council of Ephesus], and ‘confirmed’ all of its acts, and is in agreement with us.”
Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 434)

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.”
Council of Chalcedon, Session lll (A.D. 451)

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned your back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
Luke 22, 31-32

Pope Martin 1 spoke ‘ex-cathedra’ (from the chair of Peter) when he condemned the heresy of Monothelitism that was still embraced by the other Patriarchates of the Church and his predecessor’s inaction against this heresy. His declaration of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ante partem, in partu, and post partem carries equal weight as a definitive infallible teaching.

Pope Martin 1 had actually affirmed the official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 which refer to Mary as aieparthenos , “ever virgin”. An anathema against the three chapters condemns those who deny:

the nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her…

The statements of the Council were not made in reference to a direct discussion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but her perpetual virginity was acknowledged in a definatory document that was issued pertaining to Christ. Pope Martin’s declaration was made in direct reference to Mary during the Monothelite controversy in the Church. A doctrinal definition is made by the Episcopal College in communion with its president, the Bishop of Rome, or by the Pope in virtue of his presidency over the entire Episcopal College. I have already shown how the Lateran Synod failed to consist of the entire Episcopal College and how Pope Martin was compelled to exercise his Divine Office and Mandate in the face of heresy. The Holy Spirit is not constrained by technicalities. In view of the Monothelite heresy that was plaguing the Church, the Pope (Bishop of Rome) was in a valid position to exercise his official capacity to convene a council and make a definitive pronouncement in the matters of faith despite the absence of the Episcopacy of the Eastern Patriarchates.

Removing God from his creation, where he is omnipresent and expresses himself to us and meets us in our participation in his creation as a medium of expression and response to the Creator, by locking him up inside your head so that you can “feel” his presence without any distractions posed by God’s creation, is a contradiction in terms and a tendency of Gnostics who regard God’s creation as intrinsically evil and corrupt.

PAX

 

[GailMac]

Go Good Fella Go! You da man!

And pray for me please. I could use it.

Peace,

Gail

 

[sola_scriptura]

Removing God from his creation, where he is omnipresent and expresses himself to us and meets us in our participation in his creation as a medium of expression and response to the Creator, by locking him up inside your head so that you can “feel” his presence without any distractions posed by God’s creation, is a contradiction in terms and a tendency of Gnostics who regard God’s creation as intrinsically evil and corrupt.

PAX

I love the Roman argument strategy. Anytime someone disagrees with Rome they’re a heretic not giving proper glory to God. Of course there’s always some ancient heresy that objection to Roman doctrine is connected to. Now not praying to (or venerating, or whatever you call it) statutes and paintings is Gnostic? Please – that’s the most absurd argument I’ve ever heard.

I have absolute confidence that my creator wants me to have faith in the unseen.

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

If you would like to learn more about the pagan roots of this practice you can see my post in another thread (link here).

**“For I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

“Do we then make the law void through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31).

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19).

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth (Deuteronomy 5:8).**

Since you guys think you know it all then:

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains (John 9:41).

Best of luck

 

[Good_Fella]

I love the Roman argument strategy. Anytime someone disagrees with Rome they’re a heretic not giving proper glory to God. Of course there’s always some ancient heresy that objection to Roman doctrine is connected to. Now not praying to (or venerating, or whatever you call it) statutes and paintings is Gnostic? Please – that’s the most absurd argument I’ve ever heard.

I have absolute confidence that my creator wants me to have faith in the unseen.

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

If you would like to learn more about the pagan roots of this practice you can see my post in another thread (link here).

**“For I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

“Do we then make the law void through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31).

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19).

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth (Deuteronomy 5:8).**

Since you guys think you know it all then:

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains (John 9:41).

Best of luck

I’m curious. When you were serving in the armed forces overseas, didn’t you keep a picture of your wife and kids with you to look at when you missed them and wanted to feel close to them? Or did you just close your eyes and try to imagine them in your mind to feel their presence? I doubt it, because our relationship with those we love isn’t as abstract as you make it out to be. The mystical body of Christ includes all the living, in this life and the next. We are one family in Christ together with Mary and the saints who have preceded us. Icons, pictures, and statues serve as makeshift photographs of those we love and rely on for their prayers in heaven, helping us feel less distant from them as a photo of your wife and kids would help you feel less distant from your family while serving overseas. We Catholics and Orthodox consider the mystical body of Christ a family under God the Father. In your tradition every believer is isolated from each other in his individual stand before God in a Master-slave relationship. There is no point in praying for each other, since you believe fellow Christians have no factual intercessory role to play in Christ. But the truth is we do according to the scriptures: Abraham, Aaron, Moses, Mary, Paul, etc…The saints who have preceded us are just as alive as we are - even more so - and they actually do pray for us for the helping graces we need to persevere to the end.

Please spare us the Fundamentalist tendency of bible-thumping. You have a bad habit of misinterpreting and distorting Scripture outside the true Apostolic faith.

 

[GailMac]

Dear Sola - I’m surprised that you use the quotation that you do!

29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed. - St. John, 20: 29

Ummmm…this is poor Doubting Thomas’ dilemma, he needed PROOF that Jesus was indeed risen from the dead because he wouldn’t take the other Apostle’s word for it. As for me, I would put most of your theology in the position of poor Doubting Thomas - you expect PROOF all the time from the Bible about just about everything we believe, meantime blessed are those who don’t need everything proven to them from a Bible to believe!

I wouldn’t wait too much longer though. I highly doubt that Jesus will appear in your living room and ask you to put your hand in his side and touch the nail marks of His Crucifixion to affirm you in your stubborn refusals to BELIEVE. Fundamentally your faith is lacking and you cling to your Bible expecting the Body of Christ, the Church, to PROVE everything to you. Where is your faith man? Why can’t you just believe?

Peace,

Gail

 

[guanophore]

I love the Roman argument strategy. Anytime someone disagrees with Rome they’re a heretic not giving proper glory to God. Of course there’s always some ancient heresy that objection to Roman doctrine is connected to. Now not praying to (or venerating, or whatever you call it) statutes and paintings is Gnostic? Please – that’s the most absurd argument I’ve ever heard.

I have absolute confidence that my creator wants me to have faith in the unseen.

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

If you would like to learn more about the pagan roots of this practice you can see my post in another thread (link here).

**“For I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

“Do we then make the law void through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31).

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19).

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth (Deuteronomy 5:8).**

Since you guys think you know it all then:

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains (John 9:41).

Best of luck

When you study up on the ancient heresies, SS, you will understand better where this position is supported. The Catholic Church has battled them and discerned the will of God. It is inappropriate for you to deem this “Roman”, however, as the vast majority of the Rites involved, especially at that time, were not Roman at all.

God embodied our souls. He made us sensate beings. He created in us a desire and ability to represent (image) the holy. In this way, we are made in his image and likeness, as He has imaged His holiness in us, His creation. So too, do we represent our higher longings in art - paintings, sculptures, poetry, etc. This is the way God made us. The Church brought the Truth to the Pagan world about what relationship Christians should have to the Creation. This is where the confrontation with the heresies took place, and was resolved.

Your comments represent a narrow minded bitterness that it ignorant of history, and are saddening.

 

[sola_scriptura]

When you study up on the ancient heresies, SS, you will understand better where this position is supported. The Catholic Church has battled them and discerned the will of God. It is inappropriate for you to deem this “Roman”, however, as the vast majority of the Rites involved, especially at that time, were not Roman at all.

God embodied our souls. He made us sensate beings. He created in us a desire and ability to represent (image) the holy. In this way, we are made in his image and likeness, as He has imaged His holiness in us, His creation. So too, do we represent our higher longings in art - paintings, sculptures, poetry, etc. This is the way God made us. The Church brought the Truth to the Pagan world about what relationship Christians should have to the Creation. This is where the confrontation with the heresies took place, and was resolved.

Your comments represent a narrow minded bitterness that it ignorant of history, and are saddening.

No – my views represent a clear reading of the word of God. No images means no images. Faith in the unseen means faith in the unseen.

Yes we were created in God’s image – however, God commanded us NOT to create images for use in worship. It’s simple enough for me – it’s frankly saddening to me that so many wish to deny simple Christianity and turn to the traditions of men and philosophical sophistry filled with complex idioms alien to our faith.