Mary the Queen of Heaven

[pcosmar]

I believe that the reformers were the wolves that Paul referred to when speaking to the church of Ephesus.

Oh,, I think those wolves were much closer.. even present at the time. And that there were many species of wolf.

one pack eventually gained control of the sheep. (mostly)

 

[Ronin Truth]

Did Joseph end up getting a really cushy job?

 

[TER]

The abridged version,, left after the Counsel and the Reformers has enough for salvation.

I never said it wasn't. I am saying that much of the fullness of the faith has been abandoned due to the censorship of the Reformers, such as the intercessions of the saints.

As for the Council of Laodicea, you are sorely mistaken friend. First of all, it was a LOCAL council conducted by about 30 clerics. The major role for this synod was for ecclesiastical and pastoral reasons on how the members of the Church should conduct themselves. Of the 60 canons, there were only 2 canons which had anything to do with the Scriptures (the one which listed what they considered canonical is questionable by the way in authenticity). Nevertheless, this local council of clerics came together to address certain specific issues within their own particular communities. Those bishops spoke about those things which were threatening the unity of the faith and the spiritual well-being of the flock. It was their duty to protect their flock from the forces which were causing many to stumble. A part of this was protecting the faithful from dubious texts (such as the gnostic texts being passed off as Christian scripture) and texts which were easily misunderstood and could become spiritually harmful to the reader without the guidance and experience of the Church.

So these 30 bishops, acting for the care of their spiritual children, recommended which books should be read in the Church. It did not make any statement to say that there was no value or truths in those books which where not placed in the canon (such as Clement, the Apostle's Creed, etc), or collectivized them as all being dubious or fakes or inherently harmful, but rather they compiled a core selections of writings which they held indisputably to be authentic and reliably beneficial to the faithful in their walk, that is, they composed a measuring stick (kanon, canon) of writings by which the truths of the faith could be held firm and other writings could be measured against.

Out of prejudices and what you have been indoctrinated with, you automatically assume some evil intent by the clerics and then confabulate with 'those who did not accept that canon of Laodacea were hunted and killed.' No, they weren't. You have been lied to.

The reality is that books which led people away from Christ and the Church sprung up in the course of history. The bishops did their best to protect the ones they have given their lives to protect by developing a canon as a guide and rule for practice and study.

If someone wants to make the claim that the Reformers did the same thing, that they removed certain books to protect the faithful, then I can respect that as an argument even as I do not agree with it. But let us not confabulate about people being hunted down and killed because 30 members of clergy in a local bishop gave a list of 60 canons for the good order and peace of the Church with only 1 or 2 referring to which books should be read in Church. Such claims do not support your arguments and only demonstrate that you still lack understanding about what a biblical canon is and the role and place of local councils in the life of the Church.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Only 144,000, eh?

 

[TER]

Oh,, I think those wolves were much closer.. even present at the time. And that there were many species of wolf.

one pack eventually gained control of the sheep. (mostly)

You mention the wolves a lot. There were wolves of course, but do you have a judgment on which were the shepherds? Obviously St. Peter was one of them, right?

Who were the shepards of the first century, the second century, the third century, the fourth century, the fifth century etc etc? Were there no shepherds? Or do you pick and choose which they were to fit your own theology and interpretations? Have you made your mind and your mind's interpretation to be the canon by which the truths should be held against? Do you know better than those 30 clergy in Laodecea what was needed to protect the flock in that day and in those times?

This is not the Christian way my friend. This is far from obedience, faith, and humility which Christ demands of us to enter into His Body and is the reason why so many schisms have occured by people putting themselves over the greater witness of the Church.

 

[pcosmar]

You mention the wolves a lot. .

Do I..? Care to quote some of what I have mentioned?
I think you are being deliberately dishonest as I have posted very little about wolves at all.

I responded to a post about wolves..

But Christ did warn of such,,so it is expected.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

And again in Acts,

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

So such is to be expected.

 

[TER]

Do I..? Care to quote some of what I have mentioned?

I responded to a post about wolves..

But Christ did warn of such,,so it is expected.

And again in Acts,


So such is to be expected.

Of course there were wolves, even before the Gospels were written. The one who betrayed the Lord (Judas) is an example. Other examples are listed in the New Testament. Throughout the history of the Church from the beginning until now there have existed those who have placed themselves above Christ and His body the Church, seeking to gain power for selfish gain. This unfortunately is the world we live in and in account of the fallen humans who are in it.

But that there were wolves only clearly demonstrates that there too were shepherds, for what makes them wolves is in their contrast to the shepherds who devoted their lives to protect the flock. And these great shepherds through the centuries have been called saints and honored for their service to God and His Church. Not because they were sinless, for Christ alone is sinless, but because they lived lives in service to Chirst to degrees worthy of mention and imitation.

 

[TER]

Do I..? Care to quote some of what I have mentioned?
I think you are being deliberately dishonest as I have posted very little about wolves at all.

I am just expressing my observation that you seem to often go to an argument that the Church has been corrupted to such a degree that it cannot be trusted, as if the gates of hell have prevailed over it. That might be true for many churches and groups of people, but because it has happened and happens so frequently does not mean that the original Church has disappeared. In fact, miraculously, it hasn't and this is what I am trying to make you understand.

 

[pcosmar]

I am just expressing my observation that you seem to often go to an argument that the Church has been corrupted to such a degree that it cannot be trusted, as if the gates of hell have prevailed over it.

What you call the church and What I call the church are two different things.

Completely and entirely two different things.

The church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit,, is entirely different than the politicized central rule of men.

The second is error is as old as Nimrod.

 

[TER]

Lily, I don't think anyone will hate you for simply disagreeing on some scriptural context. There are many things that I still question also, but St. Paul did say that we shouldn't debate such things and allow that to come between the brethren. He called them vain disputations.

I came from a protestant background myself and it's taken literally decades for me to come to see some of the greatest errors in what is being taught in some of the churches out there. For me myself, I had to spiritually take a look as those errors and weigh the impact upon the eternal soul as just how detrimental they would be regarding our belief in them.

Take for instance the belief that people are once saved always saved, that is taught in many Baptist and non-denominational protestant churches today. Also the belief that we have no free will and that our choices have no bearing on our eternal destinies, which are not true IMO. These beliefs in these things impact our eternal destinies because these beliefs are the core reason some who think they will inherit the kingdom of heaven may indeed not. These beliefs lead people to believe that they can live anyway they choose and still inherit the kingdom of heaven. Also, weighing the effect of these beliefs on the eternal soul against someone who believes that Mary remained a virgin are far more detrimental to the soul than the belief that Mary is or isn't still a virgin or the Queen of Heaven.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? There are some beliefs that are far more dangerous and deadly than others to our eternal soul. When we look at Christian denominations and what they believe as a whole, it's my opinion that we must look at the Gospel of Christ first and make sure that for the most part that teaching spiritually aligns with the word of God. The Gospel of Jesus Christ must include a choice and the ability to choose which master we will follow. It must include faith as an action of repentance towards Godliness and Christ. It must include the fact that we are never once saved always saved, but tested throughout our entire lives to the very end of it and that it's possible to fall from faith and grace. These are things that are absolutely what will determine our eternal destinies.

Whether or not Mary remained a virgin is not a belief that will place our eternal soul in jeopardy. I still have my own personal spiritual convictions about this also, but they are not enough to deter me from understanding who the keepers are and have been of the Gospel of Jesus Christ since the early apostles.

IMO--we can and should never toss the baby out with the bathwater when weighing the impact of certain beliefs that are more dangerous than others. The spirit guides us to understand what to keep and what to toss out. Every single protestant church I have ever attended held beliefs that I thought were very dangerous to the soul. I didn't agree with the Roman Catholics either on the papacy or the worship of Mary and Mariology. This is also where the church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox are split apart, yet they still share their core belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ--and this is major to me.

The word of God tells us that Jesus is our one and only mediator and that we are not to give anyone the same level of prayer, faith or worship that we do Him because He is our one and only savior. The angels are our brethren as John was told in Revelation when he attempted to bow down in worship to the angel that rebuked him for it--telling him not to do this because he was simply a messenger and brethren same as John. So it's fairly well understood that it's okay to respect the work in remembrance of the departed saints and our angel brethren in Christ, but our worship is entirely dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I became an Eastern Orthodox Catholic because I weighed the spiritual facts and came to see that no other Christian denomination has come closer to the truth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ than this church and no other reason. Does believing that Mary is the queen of heaven or whether she remained a virgin impact that at all? No--that doesn't matter to me. Do I believe in using the departed saints as intercessors? No--but I have no problem looking at their spiritual accomplishments and learning from their faithful witnesses and teaching they left for the living. It's my belief that when we pray to the Lord Jesus, the messengers of God make way for those prayers to reach the throne of God and they do the will of God by intervening and watching over us as God wills and do His bidding regarding what we are praying for. The faithful departed saints are just that to me. They have left us with their work and teaching to the benefit of mankind and in that--I believe in respecting and remembering them for their contribution to the spiritual enlightenment of mankind, but it goes no further than that with me.

So you see that not all of us will share the exact same beliefs even though we subscribe to the same church. I believe that traditions are important, because they keep us mindful of what matters spiritually. The traditions that were condemned by Jesus and the apostles were the ones that the Jews practiced in place of faith--not the traditions that the Christian church practices. So Christian traditions are very important and play an important role in our worship to the Lord IMO.

I do not place a church or their traditions above the Lord Jesus Christ and I have my own spiritual convictions that allow me to rightly divide what I should be doing and how I should worship, but this is not to say that what's right for me is the same for another. We all live our own spiritual convictions and we should never condemn another brethren because we disagree with them.

Can't believe I missed this post. Well said Terry.

 

[TER]

What you call the church and What I call the church are two different things.

Completely and entirely two different things.

The church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit,, is entirely different than the politicized central rule of men.

The second is error is as old as Nimrod.

I have to run some errands but I would like to continue this discussion later if you like. I would only say for now that you are right about your last comments. The Church is not a mere human organization, in fact no human institution compares to it. The closest thing which can compare to it is the body of Christ which is how it is defined in the Holy Scriptures. It is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit. It is a Divine-human organism in the image of Christ Who is the Theanthropos (God-man).

Please don't judge the sacredness of this body (which St. Paul says is the reason the world was made) with the sinfulness of men.

Anyway, gotta run. Thanks for the discussion and I hope we can continue later.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We are all called to be saints. It sounds like you are so used to the idea of a special "saint" that maybe it's hard for you to switch your mind to the idea that ALL true followers of Christ are called saints. There are numerous scriptures that say that, it isn't based on one scripture.

I didn't say that we aren't all called to be saints. I was specifically addressing your blog post. Edit your blog with the evidence for your claim.

And I did read that commentary. That is a perfect example of pulling something out of thin air, to try to support a doctrine. But anyway, what I asked for was scriptures, not commentary in the notes of study bible by men who are fallible.

good night!

The commentary quoted scripture to support the point. It isn't pulled out of thin air at all.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I probably just really need to work on coming up with some easier questions.

 

[lilymc]

What you call the church and What I call the church are two different things.

Completely and entirely two different things.

The church established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit,, is entirely different than the politicized central rule of men.

The second is error is as old as Nimrod.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

I don't know what your denomination is, if any, but like I said earlier on the thread, I don't belong to any denomination and I really, really, really dislike "religion" and churchianity.

The true church does not have the Crusades and Inquisition in their past. The true church does not teach wrong things about salvation, and other doctrines, or put more emphasis on churchiness than studying the bible and having a relationship with the living God of the universe.

When I think of the church, I don't think of any denomination, earthly organization, buildings, cathedrals or as you put it, the politicized 'central rule of men.'

The true church is the body of Christ - meaning born again, true believers and followers of Christ. Worldwide.

And I'm sorry people.... I can see there are a lot of people here who disagree with me on some of these things.

So I think I should leave this thread now (I have to get to work anyway!) because I don't want to argue and I don't anyone to get angry.

Terry - great point about not debating and letting things come between brothers and sisters.

So, at this point I think some of us should agree to disagree.

Peace!

 

[pcosmar]

I have to run some errands but I would like to continue this discussion later if you like. I would only say for now that you are right about your last comments. The Church is not a mere human organization, in fact no human institution compares to it.
<snip>



Anyway, gotta run. Thanks for the discussion and I hope we can continue later.

I would hope to. There is much more that we agree on than where we differ. (and on issues of greater importance)

This is why I asked you to check yourself (something we should all do continuously)
If your faith is in Jesus Christ,, it will not be shaken by anything I may present.

If your Faith is in any other,, then I hope to shake it. that it may be in Christ alone.

 

[Terry1]

That is exactly what I was thinking.

I don't know what your denomination is, if any, but like I said earlier on the thread, I don't belong to any denomination and I really, really, really dislike "religion" and churchianity.

The true church does not have the Crusades and Inquisition in their past. The true church does not teach wrong things about salvation, and other doctrines, or put more emphasis on churchiness than studying the bible and having a relationship with the living God of the universe.

When I think of the church, I don't think of any denomination, earthly organization, buildings, cathedrals or as you put it, the politicized 'central rule of men.'

The true church is the body of Christ - meaning born again, true believers and followers of Christ. Worldwide.

And I'm sorry people.... I can see there are a lot of people here who disagree with me on some of these things.

So I think I should leave this thread now (I have to get to work anyway!) because I don't want to argue and I don't anyone to get angry.

Terry - great point about not debating and letting things come between brothers and sisters.

So, at this point I think some of us should agree to disagree.

Peace!

Yes indeed--"peace" dear sister. I understand your disagreements, many of them used to be mine as well. Remember though that there is no *perfect earthly church of four walls and that there will always be something that we disagree with in part, but that's not to say there isn't a church that comes the closest to the truth and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is *key! Understanding the true Gospel eliminates the need to do or practice anything else that doesn't align with it--IMO. Understanding the Gospel of Jesus and what the Apostles wrote brings salvation.

Many churches have added or taken away in some part, but that doesn't mean that we have to toss the baby out with the bathwater either. The Lord wants us to gather together and to be lights in this dark world. If you pray and seek, I have no doubt that you will be led where you are supposed to be.

Peace and love to you Lily.

 

[TER]

I would hope to. There is much more that we agree on than where we differ. (and on issues of greater importance)

This is why I asked you to check yourself (something we should all do continuously)
If your faith is in Jesus Christ,, it will not be shaken by anything I may present.

If your Faith is in any other,, then I hope to shake it. that it may be in Christ alone.

Thank you for this. I do check myself, at least I try to, so much in fact that I do not rely on myself to know the answers. If I come up with something while reading the gospels, some kind of conclusion or theological assertion which has not been expressed or taught by the Church fathers, it immediately sends up for me a red flag. I am very careful not to chalk things up to me 'being in the Holy Spirit' or assert the cause as the Holy Spirit working in me knowing how great a sinner I am and how often times I have been wrong. I have plenty of spirits, including pride, which seek to destroy me.

In fact, if what I came up with in my contemplations and meditations are things which the saints have refuted and fought against, it immediately tells me that I am wrong. So my litmus test to know if it has indeed been the Spirit working in me is after studying further it demonstrates in the history of the Church antiquity, unanimity, and consensus amongst the Fathers. To believe that I have come up with something that much holier and greater men than me 'missed' or 'got wrong' is because I consider myself more illuminated or wiser then them. It is because of spiritual pride that I would put my own intepretations and experiences above the saints and the Church. I simply am not smart enough, wise enough, or holy enough to compete, and thus my checking myself involves measuring my thoughts and intepretations against those held fast and handed down faithfully by the saints of the Church.

And I promise you that my faith is in the Holy Trinity, and the things you have said have not shaken my faith, simply because it is not my faith (that is, a faith I have defined) but rather the faith of the 2000 year old apostolic Church. They bear witness through time and countless people the truths of the faith, and I am simply a member and follower. I do not presume to make myself the head or attribute willy nilly my thoughts to be divine revelations. Your questions and remarks do cause me to dig deeper and learn more, and for this I am very appreciative, but nothing as of yet that you have posted has not already been answered and settled centuries ago by men much greater then me.

Where you say that there is much more we agree upon is true. The greater things and more important things we do agree upon, and for this I rejoice. I am simply trying to express to you that there exists more to the faith, a fullness to the faith, and beauties and wonders that a thousand lifetimes could not count, measure or fully express. These are the riches and treasures of the Christian life.

For example, with regards to the intercessions of the saints, I get that you don't believe it is necessary or perhaps it might be dangerous. Then don't ask for their intercessions! But don't say it is not biblical when it is or not beneficial when the history of the Church proves otherwise. Your singular opinions or mine on this matter or any other do not superceed the 2000 year testimony and apostolic traditions of the Church.

That is not to say that you will not enter then Kingdom! Indeed, I might be begging you to intercede to The Lord to let me sneak in! I am just simply saying that when you say "x is all that is necessary" or "y is sufficient", it ignores the traditions and practices which bring fullness and beauty to the faith.

It is sufficient to say that I have been to Paris because I stayed in the airport there for 3 hours on my way to another destination, but does that mean I enjoyed the beauty, wonders, sights, smells and tastes of Paris compared to one who has lived there? Getting a D as a grade is sufficient to pass, but should we not strive for excellence and work to get the A and experience the joys in fruitful works? If someone thinks that the Virgin was just simply a nobody who God choose to be born from or that the sacraments are mere symbols and unnecessary or that praying to the saints does not availeth much, then that is fine and I don't question their eternal salvation because these do not define who is or who is not to be saved. What I do feel is saddened though that on account of false teachers, poor and innovative traditions, and because of the spirit of the times, many will miss some of the greatest treasures in this life on earth which the Christian faith has to offer. With you my friend, the question is not whether you will get into Heaven or not (that is up to God to decide), the question is why look for what is only sufficient and not seek out the fullness of the faith? Not to say you have not experienced such moments of blessedness and peace and illumination, but I assure you that there is always more to gain, even in this life.

 

[TER]

The true church does not have the Crusades and Inquisition in their past. The true church does not teach wrong things about salvation, and other doctrines, or put more emphasis on churchiness than studying the bible and having a relationship with the living God of the universe.

Check, check, and check. Welcome to the Orthodox Church!

The goal and aim is a living relationship with our personal God, to grow into His likeness by His mercy and grace. The traditions, sacraments, and 'churchiness' things are simply time-tested proven aids in our walk towards Him and our growth in Him. Aids which are in fact biblical and apostolic, appointed by Christ and fulfilled by the Holy Spirit working in it. One may not need these things to find Christ or to enter into the Kindgom, but when practiced in a spirit of love, obedience, and humility, Christ is truly encountered and life is shown to be full of beauty and wonder. This is the lasting and enduring legacy of the Orthodox Church and why it has survived since the day of Pentecost, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit and centered around the very life giving Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

The Church is a spiritual hospital for the sick and a meeting place to encounter Christ and find union and communion with God, and not only God but through Him all people and all of creation. It is for those who know that they are sick, acknowledge that they need help, and wish to find greater, deeper and fuller knowledge and communion with God.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Check, check, and check. Welcome to the Orthodox Church!

The goal and aim is a living relationship with our personal God. The traditions, sacraments, and 'churchiness' things are simply time-tested proven aids in our walk toward Him and with Him. Aids which are in fact biblical and apostolic. One may not need them to enter into the Kindgom, but when practiced in a spirit of love, obedience, and humility, Christ is truly encountered and life is shown to be full of beauty and wonder.

The Church is a spiritual hospital for the sick and a meeting place to encounter Christ and find union and communion with God, and not only God but through Him all people and all of creation. It is for those who know that they are sick and which to find greater and deeper knowledge and communion with God.

I'm especially fond of the vocal text settings. Often hymnographers quote directly from scripture. That orthodox music is always a capella focuses the listeners mind on the text better than the accompanied songs/chorales/hymns of the West. Indeed, just attending liturgy one can absorb a great deal of the Gospels by listening with focus!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's a Greek Orthdox chant and reading of the Gospel: It's similar at my church, but the priest chants the text of the day's gospel and epistle reading (both are preceded and followed by standardized choral chants, normally called "before and after the gospel" and "before and after the Epistle")