Catholicism, Christianity, Denominations?

[milovany]

Milovany - I appreciate sincerely the links and information you sent. I will continue to study them, but feel that I'm being led towards RC at the moment. I hope you'll understand. Thank you so much for your help!

 

 

No worries! If you ever have questions about why we chose EO over RC, please don't hesitate to ask. And please remember the common EO invitation -- "Come and see." You really can't get a complete picture of the faith/worship of our church without attending a few services; words on a page/screen really don't do it justice. I don't do it justice.

 

Good homeschooling mom that you are, I don't want your research to be incomplete. :D

[milovany]

Explain Jesus' brothers and sisters as referenced in the Bible. How could he have siblings if Mary was ever-virgin? I know the Protestant explanation - what is the RC/EO one?

 

Thank you!!

 

Joseph had been married before and the children from this marriage were Christ's stepbrothers and stepsisters. Joeseph was quite a bit older than Mary, when she was put into His care through betrothal. Link here. You can read about her ever-virginity here. The prophecy in Ezekial 44:1-2 is believe to be in reference to her: "Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." The most holy Theotokos is the "gate" that was "shut."

Edited December 31, 2010 by milovaný

[OregonNative]

Even if sola scriptura was not part of any church prior to the reformation? Not the NT church, the early church, the middle ages church(es), etc.? Just asking in a sorta tongue-in-cheek way to see if you've thought about the implications of this -- that the church was in error for 1500 years until the doctrine of sola scriptura was introduced, defined, and put into practice about 500 years ago.

 

:001_huh:

 

Or do you see another way to think about this?

 

I had no idea! LOVE, LOVE what I am learning here! And so much fun to share with my DH:001_smile:

[jenn1129]

Joseph had been married before and the children from this marriage were Christ's stepbrothers and stepsisters. Joeseph was quite a bit older than Mary, when she was put into His care through betrothal. Link here. You can read about her ever-virginity here. The prophecy in Ezekial 44:1-2 is believe to be in reference to her: "Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." The most holy Theotokos is the "gate" that was "shut."

 

 

can i ask why it matters so much? what i mean is, how does Mary having relations with joseph AFTER Jesus was born lessen her role in the bringing forth of our Lord? this has always stumped me. She still concieved by the Holy Spirit. She is still the mother of our Savior. she is still holy and full of grace. why does she have to be ever virgin? {{is confused}}

[OregonNative]

It is kind of like geometry. If you are given two angles in a triangle you can know the third angle even if it is not given. Some things that are given in Scripture lead to knowing some things that are not directly stated, and the Church has been studying that "geometry" for a long time. Now, I am not that great at geometry, and while I can follow it to some extent and can work to follow more, my own efforts will only get me so far. So I have to defer to those who know more and who have earned the right to have authority in that subject. I don't have to figure it out on my own, thank goodness. (It is common for people to underestimate the level and degree that they defer to authority in all areas of life.)

 

I would rather use, as my authority, something that is a larger and has been around longer than a pastor and a flock on their own in space and time reading from a book that they may not comprehend. That lonely way does not seem like what I see in the NT.

 

While I do not trust every individual person who has ever been a Catholic, I do trust the body of believers that spans 2000 years and draws on thousands of years of Jewish tradition before that. That is a lot of compiled wisdom. Why reinvent the wheel every few years? And when will enough reform take place that you can be sure that you have finally gotten to the Truth?

 

Love this! Thanks for the brain food:grouphug:

[milovany]

can i ask why it matters so much? what i mean is, how does Mary having relations with joseph AFTER Jesus was born lessen her role in the bringing forth of our Lord? this has always stumped me. She still concieved by the Holy Spirit. She is still the mother of our Savior. she is still holy and full of grace. why does she have to be ever virgin? {{is confused}}

 

Huh. I don't know. Does it matter? I haven't really thought about it. It just ... is. She either was or wasn't, she either had children with Joseph or she didn't, you know? And so we don't have to figure out the yes/no here 2000 years later -- it just was. And it was the exclusive teaching of the church until sometime after the reformation. Even the fathers of the reformation believed in her ever virginity.

[Parrothead]

These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura

Your article is not definitive. One should do one's own research about the people listed. Our of curiosity I've looked them up.

 

So many of these men listed were bishops of either the Catholic or Orthodox church both of which adhere to Sacred Tradition in one form or another. Some where in schism or excommunicated.

St. Cyprian - a bishop of Carthage. As a Catholic bishop one would think he would have been a proponent of Catholic teaching which includes Tradition.

Origen - not one of the best people to mention in an argument. He had problems. And there was no written scripture during his time. So who is to say that he would or wouldn't be into sola scriptura.

Origen got into theological trouble with the Church because of some extreme views adopted by his followers, the Origenists, whose views were attributed to Origen. In the course of this controversy, some of his other teachings came up, which were not accepted by the general church consensus. Among these were the preexistence of souls, universal salvation and a hierarchical concept of the Trinity.

St. Hippolytus of Rome was in schism with the Church (quite possibly the first antipope) until he died a martyr.

 

St. Athanasius - Patriarch of Alexandria. That is about as Eastern Orthodox as you can get. I'd bet good money he believed in Tradition. Also during his time there was no written scripture.

 

St.Firmilian - bishop, excommunicated

Firmilian reassures Cyprian's church at Carthage that with them the custom of rebaptizing may be new, but in Cappadocia it has been the custom from the very beginning (c. xix), and he can answer Stephen by opposing tradition to tradition...

I'm not exactly sure why he is a saint, but the EO consider him one.

 

St. Augustine - Sadly, I can honestly say I have no idea on his stance on Sacred Tradition. Other than how would a bishop of the Catholic church not stand by Sacred Tradition?

 

Tertullian - he is an old one. Back when there was no written scripture. Also he was in schism with the Orthodox church which, by the bye, didn't stop him writing. Not that that is a bad thing.

 

St. Irenaeus - was big on tradition, oral scripture and the episcopate.

 

St. Cyril (and) - another bishop and confessor.

 

St. Gregory of Nyssa - again, a bishop of a church that teaches Sacred Tradition. He would have to disregard an entire teaching of the chruch which he is a bishop to be a proponent of sola scriptura.

 

I will say I don't know much about any of these saints other than what I read this evening. I've never studied any of their works and prior to this evening only heard of a handful of them So I may very well be wrong. But I don't see all of them ditching the teaching of Sacred Tradition.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Parrothead

[OregonNative]

It's exactly why we converted (EO), FLMom -- reform? Why exactly does the Church, which is Christ's body, need to be re-formed? Didn't the Trinity do it right the first time? Aren't all things possible with God? (Even forming a church with fallible men into an infallible entity?) And if He didn't do it right the first time, then why/how could I believe He got it right when it was re-formed? These were thoughts I had anyhow. (And I'm not referring to the Reformation, necessarily, since that's not so much part of our EO history; just the general idea of re-forming the Church).

 

This is good stuff!

 

The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.

:bigear:

 

How could St. Paul have been operating on the basis of sola scriptura when there was no written scripture during his life time?

:bigear:

[Parrothead]

I really hate it when my computer freezes and eats my post!

 

I have so truly enjoyed this thread and learned so much - and I'm not the OP!

 

Catholics, rejoice - I have an appointment with my parish priest in a couple of weeks.

 

Milovany - I appreciate sincerely the links and information you sent. I will continue to study them, but feel that I'm being led towards RC at the moment. I hope you'll understand. Thank you so much for your help!

 

Parrothead - gird your patience: one question since you all have answered so many of mine in the last 40 pages:

 

Explain Jesus' brothers and sisters as referenced in the Bible. How could he have siblings if Mary was ever-virgin? I know the Protestant explanation - what is the RC/EO one?

 

Thank you!!

The brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible were cousins or close family friends. There is no Old Hebrew word for "brother." The closest St. Jerome could come when translating the Old Hebrew word for "cousin" was "brother."

 

Catholics believe the BVM was ever virgin.

 

Oh, and :party:for going to see your parish priest.

[OregonNative]

Huh. I don't know. Does it matter? I haven't really thought about it. It just ... is. She either was or wasn't, she either had children with Joseph or she didn't, you know? And so we don't have to figure out the yes/no here 2000 years later -- it just was. And it was the exclusive teaching of the church until sometime after the reformation. Even the fathers of the reformation believed in her ever virginity.

 

Do some faiths think she died a virgin? I guess I never thought of this. I just assumed her and Joseph were intimate and therefore, Jesus had siblings.

[milovany]

Do some faiths think she died a virgin? I guess I never thought of this. I just assumed her and Joseph were intimate and therefore, Jesus had siblings.

 

Yes.

 

Quote from above link:

That the Holy Virgin Mary is Ever-Virgin (Aeiparthenos) is not to elevate her to some special status or to incite us to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Rather, it is an affirmation of who Christ Jesus is. Because He has chosen her to be his mother, to conceive Him, to give flesh to Him, to give birth to Him, we understand her as a finite dwelling place of the infinite God. Thus, because she is in this sense this new Holy of Holies, her ever-virginity is a natural characteristic of such an awesome reality.

 

The whole tradition of the Orthodox Christian Church has always held her to be in truth Ever-Virgin, knowing her personally from the beginning and then passing the truths on from one generation to the next, never expanding nor subtracting from what was known in the beginning. Except for a few instances here and there in history, never have Christians regarded her in any other fashion until relatively late in the Protestant traditions.

Edited December 31, 2010 by milovaný

[OregonNative]

Yes.

I've been hiding under a very.big.rock for decades!:001_huh:

[jenn1129]

The brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible were cousins or close family friends. There is no Old Hebrew word for "brother." The closest St. Jerome could come when translating the Old Hebrew word for "cousin" was "brother.".

 

 

respectfully, Elizabeth and Mary were cousins. why was that translated correctly, but the rest were not?

[Parrothead]

This is good stuff!

 

 

:bigear:

 

 

:bigear:

I simply can't find it. I cannot find where Sola Scriptura is 1) Biblical, 2) taught by any of the early church father or doctors of the church, 3) anything other than something Luther and the other reformers started.

 

I don't say that as a dig to Martin Luther either. In many ways I agree with him. The Church did need reform - badly. And it is a known fact that he did not want to split from the Church. So it wasn't meant as something offensive, just what I'm seeing as fact.

[Parrothead]

respectfully, Elizabeth and Mary were cousins. why was that translated correctly, but the rest were not?

I suppose because Mary and Elizabeth were actually cousins.

 

Mary has gone to visit her cousin Elizabeth. There needs no alternate translation because they truly were cousins.

 

Little Jesus is playing with his cousin and besties in the front yard. Needs to be translated as brothers and friends whom he loved like brothers since there is no word for brothers.

 

I'm tired. Does that make any sense?

[Parrothead]

Do some faiths think she died a virgin? I guess I never thought of this. I just assumed her and Joseph were intimate and therefore, Jesus had siblings.

Yes, according to Catholic and Orthodox tradition Mary was ever virgin.

[Tea Time]

My initial thought was that the church is fallible. I've never thought the church to be infallible and to imagine that it was for 1500 years is possible? Of course that does seem a little far-fetched almost cultish to claim that the church was in error for so long but thanks to the reformers has now been "fixed." I see the arrogance and futility in that.

 

 

I don't think the claim is so much that the Church is infallible. Clearly no body of believers have ever managed to be perfect and make no mistakes. They have made huge mistakes, but every time a new denomination comes along they, too, make mistakes (and the atheists have the same problem, bless them). A pure Church does not exists (pure in the sense of free of sinful people). Anyway, if one did exist, I wouldn't quality as a member. :tongue_smilie:

 

So maybe think of it more like a boat. The boat is going to be tossed around, take on water, even have people bail out looking for boats that are more sound. But God said He would protect that boat, that it would never sink, and I believe it. Where in Scripture did God say that anyone would need to come along and build a new boat? Make repairs? Sure. But no authority was ever given to give up on the boat and build another one. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, show me where authority was given to Calvin or Luther (he would have been horrified at the thought) or anyone to make a brand new boat? On the contrary, I think there are verses that would be pretty much against that.

 

The EO and the RCC may argue about who owns the boat, but they, by golly, never did make a brand new one. And there is that crazy captain running around with the hat.... and well, it is mayhem and all. But we are still afloat! :lol:

 

Incidentally, that analogy is not my own. It is Biblical. The boat was foreshadowed by Noah's Ark, and Churches were built for centuries to look like the inside of a boat. ;)

[Avila]

Thanks for the clarification. Then, does God accept people who are cut off from the Catholic church?

 

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that you have to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. There is a complicated argument of "outside the Church, there is no salvation," but that doesn't condemn anyone. What it means is that the Church is intended as the ordinary path to salvation. Ordinary path, not only path though. The teaching is the the Church acts on behalf of humankind for their salvation, even if individual people choose to reject the Church. The Church acts on their behalf, even if they don't recognize it as such. But yes, non-Catholics will be loved by and accepted by Jesus Christ. Of course they are.

 

Even the unbaptized can be saved through "baptism of desire." Which is also complicated, but it basically leaves open even those who are not baptized Christians the possibility of salvation.

 

Of course, we believe that the safest path is ours. ;) But God is infinite in his mercy. So the ordinary means are not the ONLY means. God can, at his will and pleasure, choose extraordinary means, and in His mercy, he can save whoever he chooses for whatever reasons he chooses. And He can call whomever he chooses to Himself.

 

I have oversimplified the argument, but that is how I understand the basic premise.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Asenik

[ktgrok]

I don't think the claim is so much that the Church is infallible. Clearly no body of believers have ever managed to be perfect and make no mistakes. They have made huge mistakes, but every time a new denomination comes along they, too, make mistakes (and the atheists have the same problem, bless them). A pure Church does not exists (pure in the sense of free of sinful people). Anyway, if one did exist, I wouldn't quality as a member. :tongue_smilie:

 

So maybe think of it more like a boat. The boat is going to be tossed around, take on water, even have people bail out looking for boats that are more sound. But God said He would protect that boat, that it would never sink, and I believe it. Where in Scripture did God say that anyone would need to come along and build a new boat? Make repairs? Sure. But no authority was ever given to give up on the boat and build another one. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, show me where authority was given to Calvin or Luther (he would have been horrified at the thought) or anyone to make a brand new boat? On the contrary, I think there are verses that would be pretty much against that.

 

The EO and the RCC may argue about who owns the boat, but they, by golly, never did make a brand new one. And there is that crazy captain running around with the hat.... and well, it is mayhem and all. But we are still afloat! :lol:

 

Incidentally, that analogy is not my own. It is Biblical. The boat was foreshadowed by Noah's Ark, and Churches were built for centuries to look like the inside of a boat. ;)

 

Wow! I have often thought that the church I attend, over 100 years old, looks like the inside of a boat. I had no idea that was on purpose!

[Parrothead]

 

 

The EO and the RCC may argue about who owns the boat, but they, by golly, never did make a brand new one. And there is that crazy captain running around with the hat.... and well, it is mayhem and all. But we are still afloat! :lol:

 

 

Both "captains" do have funny hats don't they. I couldn't quite remember what the EO Patriarch wears on his head so I went here and saw photo 1. Yup, both sides wear funny hats.

 

Milovany or Mommaduck what is with the beards in that photo. All those men have long beards. Is that some kind of tradition or coincidence?

[ElizaG]

Thanks for the clarification. Then, does God accept people who are cut off from the Catholic church? I honestly don't know. If it's the case that "The Church can cut someone off from fellowship, but only God determines eternity," then it must be possible that God accepts people into His Presence without being a part of Holy Catholic Church--or its merely semantics

 

Yes, of course.

Just to clarify, while of course the decision is ultimately in God's hands, we can't presume that He does accept people who have been cut off from the Church due to their own actions (unless, like St. Joan of Arc, the excommunication was later declared invalid). The official Catholic position is simply that we don't know what becomes of them. For more on this subject, here's an interview about excommunication and an article about anathema, both by people trained in the Catholic Church's system of canon law.

 

(This is probably what Parrothead was saying, but the bolding made it a bit ambiguous.)

 

Regarding people of other faiths, the Catholic position is that there is no salvation outside the Church. This dogma is often referred to as EENS, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus." This teaching has not changed, and will not change. However, we also believe it's possible that some people who are sincerely seeking God might be part of the Church in some invisible way, without really knowing it. Again, we can't make any assumptions about any given person's situation. We just acknowledge that the possibility is there.

 

In every case, we trust that God's judgment will be the right one, as He is full of both mercy and justice.

[Avila]

respectfully, Elizabeth and Mary were cousins. why was that translated correctly, but the rest were not?

 

From www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310qq.asp)

 

 

Q: We Catholics say that the brethren of Jesus were really cousins, and that there is no Greek word for cousin—but then how could the angel Gabriel tell Mary "your cousin Elizabeth also has conceived"?

 

A: First of all, we do not say that the brethren of Jesus were necessarily cousins. Another possibility, and the first explanation found in early Christian tradition, is that they were stepbrothers, children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.

 

Second, there is a Greek word for "cousin" (anepsios). The language that lacks such a word is Aramaic, the language that Jesus and his disciples mostly used in their everyday discourse.

 

Third, although Greek does have a word for "cousin," the word St. Luke uses to translate Gabriel’s statement to Mary is not in fact the one for "cousin," but "relative" or "kin" (sungenis). By translating sungenis as "cousin," your Bible translation says more than the sacred writer implied. All we know for sure is that Elizabeth and Mary were related somehow.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Asenik

[milovany]

Milovany or Mommaduck what is with the beards in that photo. All those men have long beards. Is that some kind of tradition or coincidence?

 

This one?

 

 

Yeah, it's pretty traditional for many (most?) deacons, priests and bishops to have long hair and beards, following the example of the priesthood in the Old Testament. It's not necessarily practiced churchwide, but you do see it a lot. Our priest has a long white beard and long white hair -- he often gets asked if he's Santa Claus at Christmas time. He says, "No ... but he's a friend of mine." ;)

Edited December 31, 2010 by milovaný

[Parrothead]

Just to clarify, while of course the decision is ultimately in God's hands, we can't presume that He does accept people who have been cut off from the Church due to their own actions (unless, like St. Joan of Arc, the excommunication was later declared invalid). The official Catholic position is simply that we don't know what becomes of them. For more on this subject, here's an interview about excommunication and an article about anathema, both by people trained in the Catholic Church's system of canon law.

 

(This is probably what Parrothead was saying, but the bolding made it a bit ambiguous.)

 

Regarding people of other faiths, the Catholic position is that there is no salvation outside the Church. This dogma is often referred to as EENS, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus." This teaching has not changed, and will not change. However, we also believe it's possible that some people who are sincerely seeking God might be part of the Church in some invisible way, without really knowing it. Again, we can't make any assumptions about any given person's situation. We just acknowledge that the possibility is there.

 

In every case, we trust that God's judgment will be the right one, as He is full of both mercy and justice.

Now, I was thinking more along the lines of literally "cut off from the Church." The last hunter gatherer tribe in Africa may not have the first clue about who Jesus is. The 14-year old Protestant kid who wants to be Catholic for some reason or another but his parents won't take him to the local parish. Those politically oppressed such as those many souls in Communist China. And so on.

 

That isn't to say the very right and pious true believer down to his toes who happens to be Protestant (or other) won't be granted salvation. God does what God's gonna do.

 

I truly believe those babies that die before birth are not in Hell. Last I heard the Chruch's stance is "we don't know." There have been several saints that at one time or another had been excommunicated.

[Parrothead]

This one?

 

 

Yeah, it's pretty traditional for many (most?) deacons, priests and bishops to have long hair and beards, following the example of the priesthood in the Old Testament. It's not necessarily practiced churchwide, but you do see it a lot.

Yeah, that one. I think it is cool. And I love their vestments.

[Tea Time]

Both "captains" do have funny hats don't they. I couldn't quite remember what the EO Patriarch wears on his head so I went here and saw photo 1. Yup, both sides wear funny hats.

 

Milovany or Mommaduck what is with the beards in that photo. All those men have long beards. Is that some kind of tradition or coincidence?

 

:lol::lol:

 

I love the vestments, the majesty, the reverence of the ancient Churches. Both of them! I love nuns, too. I feel such a sense of peace when I am around them. They take me out of the culture and time that tries so hard to suck me in, and they help me recall that THIS IS NOT MY HOME! "I am in the world but not of the world."

 

And that aspect is part of the ancient Church. They use symbols and senses (incense, colors, icons, music, architecture) to invoke meaning and to make present both the events of the past - Christ's time on earth, and our hope for the future - heaven. This is why we have a liturgical year, so that we live out the important, Christian unfolding of events each year. We live the faith. I wish I was better at observing it because it is brilliant.

[Parrothead]

From www.catholic.com (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310qq.asp)

 

 

Q: We Catholics say that the brethren of Jesus were really cousins, and that there is no Greek word for cousin—but then how could the angel Gabriel tell Mary "your cousin Elizabeth also has conceived"?

 

A: First of all, we do not say that the brethren of Jesus were necessarily cousins. Another possibility, and the first explanation found in early Christian tradition, is that they were stepbrothers, children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.

 

Second, there is a Greek word for "cousin" (anepsios). The language that lacks such a word is Aramaic, the language that Jesus and his disciples mostly used in their everyday discourse.

 

Third, although Greek does have a word for "cousin," the word St. Luke uses to translate Gabriel’s statement to Mary is not in fact the one for "cousin," but "relative" or "kin" (sungenis). By translating sungenis as "cousin," your Bible translation says more than the sacred writer implied. All we know for sure is that Elizabeth and Mary were related somehow.

You are so good at answering these questions. I'm giving you the night shift. I'm going to bed. :lol::lol::lol:

[Parrothead]

:lol::lol:

 

I love the vestments, the majesty, the reverence of the ancient Churches. Both of them! I love nuns, too. I feel such a sense of peace when I am around them. They take me out of the culture and time that tries so hard to suck me in, and they help me recall that THIS IS NOT MY HOME! "I am in the world but not of the world."

 

And that aspect is part of the ancient Church. They use symbols and senses (incense, colors, icons, music, architecture) to invoke meaning and to make present both the events of the past - Christ's time on earth, and our hope for the future - heaven. This is why we have a liturgical year, so that we live out the important, Christian unfolding of events each year. We live the faith. I wish I was better at observing it because it is brilliant.

Oh, me too. I've got a couple books in my Amazon cart about how to live the faith all year.

 

I would really love to go to an EO church and experience it. I've never lived close enough to one during my adult life to go.

 

My newest parish (where I live now) was built in the 1960s so you can imagine how modern and plain it is.

[Avila]

You are so good at answering these questions. I'm giving you the night shift. I'm going to bed. :lol::lol::lol:

 

Goodnight, Chucki! I am not too far behind you there.

 

What will I do with myself next week when this thread is over. Oh yeah, school. :D

[Parrothead]

Goodnight, Chucki! I am not too far behind you there.

 

What will I do with myself next week when this thread is over. Oh yeah, school. :D

Every time I think it is over it picks back up again. I went to Tai Chi class thinking I'd find it on page 2 when I got back. Nope, it got busy while I was gone. Good night.

[milovany]

I would really love to go to an EO church and experience it. I've never lived close enough to one during my adult life to go.

 

Well, if you ever vacation in Seattle, you let us know -- Patty Joanna and I will join you; and maybe mommaduck will haul herself on up here, too! :001_smile:

Edited December 31, 2010 by milovaný

[Sugarfoot]

 

Catholics, rejoice - I have an appointment with my parish priest in a couple of weeks.

 

Rejoicing here!

 

 

Explain Jesus' brothers and sisters as referenced in the Bible. How could he have siblings if Mary was ever-virgin? I know the Protestant explanation - what is the RC/EO one?

 

Thank you!!

 

Do some faiths think she died a virgin? I guess I never thought of this. I just assumed her and Joseph were intimate and therefore, Jesus had siblings.

 

We believe that the last words Jesus spoke to His mother reveal the sibling situation, as well.

 

In John 19:26-27, Jesus says to His mother, "Woman, behold your son." and then to the disciple whom He loved, "This is your mother."

 

Please forgive me if I missed a word or two--I typed it from memory.

 

In that time, had Jesus had siblings, they would have cared for Mary after Jesus' death, but instead, He relied on John.

[milovany]

I would love the link that you have bookmarked at home:)

 

Thank you for the clarification. I would love to have the link to the article, if it is not too much trouble!

 

Eek! I was searching through this thread looking for something else and just saw these requests for the article that's on my other laptop. I'll make sure to still post that ..... when I get on the other computer. Forgive!

 

ETA - Here it is: View of Sin in the Early Church

I have a couple of other questions, if you do not mind. If salvation is a process, at what point is a person deemed to be saved? Can someone lose their salvation by not continuing in the process? Do those questions even make sense?

 

Yes, the questions make perfect sense. There's a nice EO video out there somewhere (yeesh, am I going to promise another link?) that speaks of "I was saved, I'm being saved, I will be saved" .... We were saved when Christ died on the cross, we're being saved as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and we will be saved if we endure to the end. These are all Biblical truths.

 

ETA - And here's the video: Are You Saved?

Edited December 31, 2010 by milovaný

[OregonNative]

We believe that the last words Jesus spoke to His mother reveal the sibling situation, as well.

 

In John 19:26-27, Jesus says to His mother, "Woman, behold your son." and then to the disciple whom He loved, "This is your mother."

 

Please forgive me if I missed a word or two--I typed it from memory.

 

In that time, had Jesus had siblings, they would have cared for Mary after Jesus' death, but instead, He relied on John.

 

IIRC Jesus says this to John in the Passion of Christ-I was totally confused when Jesus said this to him. Now I get it-thanks:001_smile:

[OregonNative]

Eek! I was searching through this thread looking for something else and just saw these requests for the article that's on my other laptop. I'll make sure to still post that ..... when I get on the other computer. Forgive!

 

ETA - Here it is: View of Sin in the Early Church

 

 

Yes, the questions make perfect sense. There's a nice EO video out there somewhere (yeesh, am I going to promise another link?) that speaks of "I was saved, I'm being saved, I will be saved" .... We were saved when Christ died on the cross, we're being saved as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and we will be saved if we endure to the end. These are all Biblical truths.

 

ETA - And here's the video: Are You Saved?

 

Thank you for these! The above in bold makes complete sense.

[mommaduck]

Huh. I don't know. Does it matter? I haven't really thought about it. It just ... is. She either was or wasn't, she either had children with Joseph or she didn't, you know? And so we don't have to figure out the yes/no here 2000 years later -- it just was. And it was the exclusive teaching of the church until sometime after the reformation. Even the fathers of the reformation believed in her ever virginity.

Even CALVIN and LUTHER! :D And there are very conservative Reformed today that still believe this.

Edited December 31, 2010 by mommaduck

[Gretchen in NJ]

Oh, me too. I've got a couple books in my Amazon cart about how to live the faith all year.

 

I would really love to go to an EO church and experience it. I've never lived close enough to one during my adult life to go.

 

My newest parish (where I live now) was built in the 1960s so you can imagine how modern and plain it is.

 

I too prefer the old churches to the new. We go to one built in the 1950s, but they did their best to be as close to a traditional church as the could.

[unsinkable]

:lol::lol:

 

I love the vestments, the majesty, the reverence of the ancient Churches. Both of them! I love nuns, too. I feel such a sense of peace when I am around them. They take me out of the culture and time that tries so hard to suck me in, and they help me recall that THIS IS NOT MY HOME! "I am in the world but not of the world."

 

And that aspect is part of the ancient Church. They use symbols and senses (incense, colors, icons, music, architecture) to invoke meaning and to make present both the events of the past - Christ's time on earth, and our hope for the future - heaven. This is why we have a liturgical year, so that we live out the important, Christian unfolding of events each year. We live the faith. I wish I was better at observing it because it is brilliant.

 

When my MIL was dying, a Sister fr. the hospital came in everyday to be with us for a while and Sister would hold MIL's hand and say, "Go home, Margie. Jesus is waiting for you. Go home." It was near Mother's Day and Sister kept saying that MIL was going to be the guest of honor as the newest Mom in heaven.

 

:crying:

[mommaduck]

Both "captains" do have funny hats don't they. I couldn't quite remember what the EO Patriarch wears on his head so I went here and saw photo 1. Yup, both sides wear funny hats.

 

Milovany or Mommaduck what is with the beards in that photo. All those men have long beards. Is that some kind of tradition or coincidence?

 

I believe bishops are required to have beards (if they are able to grow one).

 

Well, if you ever vacation in Seattle, you let us know -- Patty Joanna and I will join you; and maybe mommaduck will haul herself on up here, too! :001_smile:

 

Oh goodness, I haven't been in that area since Helen's blew her side out! I was six!

[Gretchen in NJ]

Good question. I am sorry to say that I don't have an answer.:blushing: It is actually being changed to, "And with your spirit." I do have someone I can ask.

 

I thought I had it right but not quite.:blushing: I found this on a USCCB page. I am looking at #7.

What do the people mean when they respond “and with your spirit�

The expression et cum spiritu tuo is only addressed to an ordained minister. Some scholars have suggested that spiritu refers to the gift of the spirit he received at ordination. In their response, the people assure the priest of the same divine assistance of God’s spirit and, more specifically, help for the priest to use the charismatic gifts given to him in ordination and in so doing to fulfill his prophetic function in the Church.

[Tea Time]

When my MIL was dying, a Sister fr. the hospital came in everyday to be with us for a while and Sister would hold MIL's hand and say, "Go home, Margie. Jesus is waiting for you. Go home." It was near Mother's Day and Sister kept saying that MIL was going to be the guest of honor as the newest Mom in heaven.

 

:crying:

 

How lovely!

 

When my friend had to travel by plane the first time ever due to a family emergency, there was a sister who helped her along the way. She was very grateful.

[Parrothead]

Well, if you ever vacation in Seattle, you let us know -- Patty Joanna and I will join you; and maybe mommaduck will haul herself on up here, too! :001_smile:

If I head west I'll stop and pick up mommaduck on the way.

 

Thank you.

[Parrothead]

We believe that the last words Jesus spoke to His mother reveal the sibling situation, as well.

 

In John 19:26-27, Jesus says to His mother, "Woman, behold your son." and then to the disciple whom He loved, "This is your mother."

 

Please forgive me if I missed a word or two--I typed it from memory.

 

In that time, had Jesus had siblings, they would have cared for Mary after Jesus' death, but instead, He relied on John.

The Catholic church teaches that this moment is when she became not only Jesus' mother, but our mother as well.

[Parrothead]

When my MIL was dying, a Sister fr. the hospital came in everyday to be with us for a while and Sister would hold MIL's hand and say, "Go home, Margie. Jesus is waiting for you. Go home." It was near Mother's Day and Sister kept saying that MIL was going to be the guest of honor as the newest Mom in heaven.

 

:crying:

What a lovely thing. :grouphug:

[Cheryl in NM]

This is where I struggle because I personally would think that God protected the inspired writings of the books even tho man is fallen. That the books say what they say because they are supposed to. If the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally-who then decides how it is to be taken? This seems like a slippery slope. I have a really hard time reconciling this for myself.

Thoughts?

 

There is a scripture in the Bible that addresses this. It says something about "lean not on your own understanding, but the Word of God." I know that's not a direct quote and I don't know how to search it in the Bible, but I take that verse to mean that we are to read the Bible and God will speak to our hearts individually as to how apply it in our lives.

[milovany]

There is a scripture in the Bible that addresses this. It says something about "lean not on your own understanding, but the Word of God." I know that's not a direct quote and I don't know how to search it in the Bible, but I take that verse to mean that we are to read the Bible and God will speak to our hearts individually as to how apply it in our lives.

 

Hmm, I'm not sure which verse either. There's "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight" but that doesn't mention the Word of God. I'd be interested in seeing where it says to rely only on the written word of God as indicated -- although I knew how hard it can be to find a certain Scripture when the search terms are so common (BTDT!).

 

I think wherever/whatever it is, it's important to note that Jesus Himself is the "Word of God" (see John 1, and others) -- not solely the printed text of the Bible. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." He's a living, breathing person, not something that can be contained in the pages of a book. Jesus Himself said many, many more books could be written -- and still He could not be contained within them. For us (EO), the Church is His living, breathing Body on the earth and is where He can be found. Jesus is the Truth, and the church, Scripturally, is the "pillar and foundation of Truth." So that's why we are not sola scriptura.

 

Not trying to argue with you (!), just letting you know why we don't ascribe to relying on the Bible alone for matters of faith.

Edited December 31, 2010 by milovaný

[OregonNative]

Jesus Himself said many, many more books could be written -- and still He could not be contained within them.

 

 

Is this in the Bible, Canons or elsewhere? Another subject I want to read about:001_smile:

[lamamaloca]

Is this in the Bible, Canons or elsewhere? Another subject I want to read about:001_smile:

 

Actually, this wasn't the words of Christ, but is the last verse of the Gospel of John (21:25): "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

[myfatherslily]

I just wanted to pop in here, after 450 posts, to say that I've been engrossed in both this thread and the others like it! I've always gone to a non-denominational, Baptist-like church. Then over the past few years, half of my family has become Orthodox! Everything I thought I knew has been turned on its head:) I'm deeply intrigued with the Orthodox church and am learning so much... mostly learning how little I know. Thanks to all of you, I'm learning a lot about the Catholic church as well.

 

So thank you!:D

[milovany]

Actually, this wasn't the words of Christ, but is the last verse of the Gospel of John (21:25): "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

 

Thank you for the correction!