Dear Canadian Cousin, There are Seven Ecumenical Councils and four are Christological, two explanatory and One a question of manners {Field. Of the Church.} Our greatest Archbishop, Bl, William Laud, in his dialogue with Fisher, tells us that where General Councils , after completion ,are accepted by the whole Church, they are to be accounted indfallible! I repeat Field, a reputed Calvinist, tells us,'there are seven such'! If any one teaching of the Church contradicts the holy Scripture, that teaching must be utterly banished from the minds of Christians. Why is it so important to follow the mere opinions of men when the surest teaching of the Holy Ghost has made it plain that the LORD Jesus was humble enough to share the womb with younger brethren to come after Him? He is not jealous, envious, or terrible - but meek, and humble of heart.[/quote] We do not ,perhaps, follow the teaching of men, we follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost working in the mystical Body of Christ, the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as we are taught by scripture. I refer to Acts 15, when james the brother of Christ ,claimed ,'it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us". If I were to take your expostion seriously, I would indeed be taking ,' mere opinions of men,' no impoliteness intended. According to the Most Holy Spirit of God, in His inspiration of the Divine Word through St. Luke, Christ's brothers & sisters were adelphoi (womb-siblings), not anepsioi (wider, extended family). Why are people so utterly set on Mary's ever-virginity? I'm set upon, chiefly because it has been a constant doctrine of the Church in England, (Anglican Communion, ) of which Church, I've been a member for many years. Indeed as you are now! In fact for well over 1200 years that I can trace and as I am led to understand that the Councils simply recounted Church teaching later referred to as Holy Tradition, most probably from AD,33 . I should like to point out that your good self and others, are disobeying the Pauline Injunction,'Keep the Deposit!
The Anglican position on the Scriptures is, Revelation, Scripture and their interpretation by the Holy Fathers in Council! To repeat, Archbishop, Bl., William Laud speaking for the Church in the reformation claimed that where general Councils were accepted by the whole Church after their completion, they were to be accounted infallible! ( Fisher & Laud.)
You wipe away 800 years of Christ's teaching,when you abandon the Apostles and the patristic [?] Fathers. The package has to be accepted, not just the bits you like and agree with!
I see statements like this quite often around here. I wonder why that is? There are reasons based on Scripture and Tradition to support her perpetual virginity (and the other children being Joseph's), and there are reasons based solely on Scripture to argue against it as well. A lot of us believe it, in agreement with Church teaching throughout the ages (including many Reformers). That doesn't really indicate a desire to join another Church...it just means that after careful study and consideration, we hold to the traditional belief about Mary. It's not a dogma for us to believe one way or the other; I merely spoke up earlier because calling it a "superstition" just isn't accurate. As for Anglicans who believe that the other children were hers: you never hear anyone tell them to join the Baptists or the Pentecostals. Maybe those Anglicans could show us the same courtesy?
The thing is, Anglicans have in common with Baptists and other non-Roman bodies a belief in the final authority of scripture. If you want to disbelieve the clear meaning of scripture and place tradition above it, that's your problem, not mine, but please don't call yourself an Anglican when doing so. And the perpetual virginity of Mary is definitely a superstition, having absolutely zero basis in scripture.
Abandoning the Apostles means abandoning their teaching; their teaching which is found exclusively in scripture refutes the perpetual virginity of Mary, so it is you who has abandoned the Apostles, not I. I do not abandon the patristic fathers, but when they contradict scripture, I follow scripture, as it is the only authoritative sourcebook of the Christian faith. You should either accept what the scriptures clearly teach about Mary, or stop pretending to be Anglican. You have called me a sectarian, told me I'm not Anglican, and other such stuff. But I hold to the Anglican position on scripture while you do not.
. or obviously AMIA, if you are a representaive ,'Bishop,?' There's a vast difference between what Anglicans believe and what baptists or any any of the sects say, that includes Rome! We believe firmly and securely in Christ's Revelation, which is recorded in Scripture.(S.Jude.) . What we don't have is any Johnny come lately, interpreting our beliefs in the light of their own wishes and interests. Christ revealed His New gospel to the Apostolic College, who in turn taught the Seventy and the early Christian Fathers. (Apostolic Succession & Order.) Where questions of either procedure or theology were in dispute the problems were discussed within Councils of the Apostles and Bishops or fathers,( Jerusalem Council,69 AD.) this has been preserved throughout the history of the Church. Both Old and New Covenants! The principal remained and in the 4th, Century we have Vincent of lerins referring every one back to the early fathers. The Seven Sacred Councils finished with the Seventh ,II Ephesus. But neither the Councils of the Church, or the ancient fathers indulged in Revelation, the Deed is done, Christ revealed, the apostolic college and the bishops simply interpreted in the light of the traditional teachings. Modern Sectaries and Dissenters simply abandon the Early Revelation and in its place we are fed their own musings!
Did you see the earlier post that gave the basis in Scripture? And I will continue to call myself an Anglican, being a baptized & confirmed member of an Anglican Church, no matter what somebody on the Internet says. I do recommend (and I mean this seriously, not belligerently) that you objectively research the reasons why we hold this position. It isn't for the reasons that you seem to think.
I came across a number of websites that discuss the 'adelphoi' issue. One catholic bible study website addresses it this way: " Jesus did not have brothers and sisters, but He did have step-brothers,sisters, and cousins. There is no separate word for cousin, half-brothers/sisters, or step-brothers/sisters in Hebrew or Aramaic. The only way to designate a "cousin" was to indicate that a certain person was the son of your mother's brother, etc. In Hebrew and Aramaic any kinsman or a countryman was a "brother." This peculiarity of the Hebrew language is evident in other passages in the New Testament that are clearly not speaking of blood relationships. In Acts 1:14 and 16 Peter addresses the 120 disciples [men and women] praying and waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room of Jerusalem and calls them adelphoi. In Peter's great homily at the Feast of Pentecost he preaches the risen Christ to the Jewish crowds and calls them adelphoi (Acts 2:29,37). Later when Peter preaches to the Jew at the Temple, he also calls them adelphoi. Adelphoi (meaning, "from the womb") is the only word used for "brothers" in the entire Greek New Testament. Throughout the book of Acts and all of Sts. Paul, James and John's letters to the Church, the New Covenant believers are all refereed to as adelphoi (the plural form can be used to indicate both sisters and brothers / male and female kinsman). The point is, in the New Testament the Greek word adelphoi is being used in the Hebrew sense of kinsman/kinswoman or covenant brother or sister. We know from the Bible and other sources that Jesus had several kinsmen who became prominent in the Jerusalem New Covenant Church. Both James and Simon became Bishops of Jerusalem (according to tradition they were a stepbrother and a cousin to Jesus). Both Jesus' kinsmen James and Jude wrote books of the New Testament that bear their names. If Mary had other sons, it would have been inconceivable that Jesus would have left her in the care of John at the foot of the cross instead of telling John to make sure that another son cared for her (Jn 19:26-27)." A number of other websites support this. But since you've already accused me of academic dishonesty, you'll probably write this off as another made up quote. Which you are free to do. It does not change the truth of the doctrine or my quote. Adelphoi is not the ace in the hole you think it to be.
It's difficult to try to engage in a conversation with you because you are constantly looking down your long spiritually arrogant nose at me and disparaging what I believe, calling me a sectarian, putting down the AMiA, etc. You can place the word Bishop in quotation marks all you want when referring to me; it matters not what you say or think because I am a bishop in apostolic succession. Despite all your blather above, the fact is this: Anglicanism affirms the primary and final authority of scripture; tradition is not equal to or above scripture in Anglicanism. Thus, when tradition contradicts scripture, to be a faithful Anglican, one must go with scripture. Scripture clearly and undeniably refutes the perpetual virginity of Mary. Case closed. That is sufficient, but further consider this: Does any intelligent and logical person really believe that Mary remained married to Joseph all their lives and never -- NEVER -- had sexual relations with him? There are no words to adequately describe such absurdity. As has been pointed out, this superstition about Mary came about for three reasons: The desire to have a Christian "goddess"; a faulty view of original sin; and a fear of sex and a view that sex is somehow impure or dirty. The fact is that Jesus had biological siblings. The scriptures prove it; that settles it.
If this arguement is true why did Mary bother getting betrothed . And if Mary remained a virgin all her life, to my base thinking this would make Joseph a right plonker. 1st century Jewish law is not my forte but if the relationship 'twixt Mary and Joseph was not consumated were they really married, as the bible says they were? Didn't this arguement come up when Henry VIII wanted to mary his brothers wife, or didn't want to remain married to her, a married but not consumated relationship?
In fairness, her betrothal was before she received the news about the Son she was to bear. The early Tradition states that Jesus' "brothers" were Joseph's from a previous marriage, and that he might have been significantly older than she. Many also believe that he died before too many years had passed. The consummation issue can be raised regarding the validity of marriage, but it probably isn't a problem if both parties are willingly abstaining. I'm not saying that I'm dogmatic about this...I've been on both sides of the issue at different times in my life! I just lean toward her perpetual virginity because it is the historic, majority position. Neither side is easier to believe than the other, IMO.
I agree DK. It doesn't change the gospel message too much but few things in the church enjoy such universal adherence. For 1700 years only two dissenters of note can be pointed to, Tertullian and Helvidius, both of which became heretics for this or other reasons. I am not so sure in the infallibility of my interpretation own of scripture as to overthrow so strong a common witness of the church catholic.
I'll go with scripture over the church catholic when the latter disagrees with and contradicts the former. That is made even easier when I know where the doctrine came from and why. Apparently for some there is a need to believe in the doctrine, however misguided and unhelpful that may be. Anyway, I think I've said all I need to say on this; although very important in my opinion, there are even more pressing issues at hand.
It's no use being peevish, it's your own fault, if you were an Anglican Bishop, you would have to hold the faith and you don't ! You could change that and I would hope you do. Neither does the AMIA, stick to closely to it, for instance, it doesn't hold to the Seven Councils, which some bishop described as the Pillar and 'Ground of the Faith'. He was Orthodox, but he was correct. Despite all your blather above, the fact is this: Anglicanism affirms the primary and final authority of scripture; tradition is not equal to or above scripture in Anglicanism. Thus, when tradition contradicts scripture, to be a faithful Anglican, one must go with scripture. Now you talk about blather and so on, but I at least read and answer your epistles, whereas I get the impression you don't read them, unless your comprehension is failing? If it is, I apologise, but where have I said that Anglicanism is otherwise. We believe in Christ's Revelation, as S.Paul put it without addition or dimminution! What more can we say? Your problem is that you prefer your own and your fellow's interpretation to that of the Apostolic College or The Holy fathers. Anglicanism, is orthodoxy in the west, it is the summation of two thousand years teaching, your folly is that you reject it! No one forces, either the AMIA, to believe, or your good self, but for heavens sake don't go around bullying us. Scripture clearly and undeniably refutes the perpetual virginity of Mary. Case closed. It very obviously isn't closed, neither has it been closed for some considerable time, the question has been accepted for some time. The seven Councils have declared or defined, I'm not sure which, Mary as Ever Virgin because it seems incredible to them as descendants of the apostles that the Mother of Our Lord and Saviour could be anything else but sinless, having borne Christ. I accept her as The Mother of God, being Immaculate and Ever Virgin, as does the Church. Now if you can't believe what the Church teaches and you positively disagree what's left? That is sufficient, but further consider this: Does any intelligent and logical person really believe that Mary remained married to Joseph all their lives and never -- NEVER -- had sexual relations with him? There are no words to adequately describe such absurdity. As has been pointed out, this superstition about Mary came about for three reasons: The desire to have a Christian "goddess"; a faulty view of original sin; and a fear of sex and a view that sex is somehow impure or dirty. The fact is that Jesus had biological siblings. The scriptures prove it; that settles it.[/quote] Rome & the AMIA have spoken.
Rome & the AMIA have spoken.[/quote] See my first answer within your quoted post above, in blue. Rome agrees with you. You libeled them without realizing it. You continue to disparage, belittle, and mischaracterize the AMiA, but that lowers you, not them. What do you have against orthodox Anglicanism?