Dad, who is an episcopal priest

[jswranch]

New thread from[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52771"] here.[/url]

This is a new hybrid from the corrections of his beliefs.

Dad is with ECUSA, loosely, though he does not care for it much and feels it went astray, pre-woman's 'ordination.' He falls under the 'conservative' crowd for Anglicans. He is in the diocese of Ft. Worth under Bp Iker, which is one of the few that does not allow priestesses. Dad is also aligned with FIF/NA which I was in before I converted (reconcilled) to Rome. He also supports the Anglican movements in ECUSA. He leans High Church or Charismatic as the situation/parish calls. He is anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Spong. He is also anti-contraception for all (thanks to a Janet Smith CD I sent him).

[quote]For the papacy:
I think of the Catholic Church as the mother church and highly respect the Bp of Rome. The Catholic Church is highly institutional with a good and strong head. This is a good thing, especially in today's world. There is no perfect human government, but the best is a benevolent monarchy. The kind we have can be good, but is now failing. It is like the American government which has checks and balances; our checks and balances have begun to fail, and that is why our "government" is failing. Whether the Orthodox have a Pope or not is not a big issue with me. I wouldn't come down too hard on the Orthodox because they have 'heretics', though. Believe me, so does the Catholic Church.

By the way, Peter was clearly Jesus' choice to head the early church. After he narrowly and miraculously escaped execution (Acts 12), he skedaddles and reappears in Antioch (where Paul chastizes him for being cowardly and two-faced. But, not over leaving.) James becomes head of the church, presumably at that time. None of this says in even the slightest way that the authority granted to the church (e.g. John 20:23, Matthew 18:18) was intended to be vested in one man. It does suggest, however, Jesus knew and believed that the best form of government for humans was benevolent monarchy. But all this divine authority, and the ability to KNOW things others closer to reality didn't know? No.

Development of Dogma/doctrine:
The roman church and pope has over extended its authority and theology with marian doctrines. I question the validity of the the doctrines because they [perpetual virginity etc] lack scriptural foundation and historical reference. You read the Gospels:Mary received high honor, but no one ever suggested she remained a virgin. St Chrysostom said she was so special, surely Joseph would not have had sex with her. This is his logic; the biblical record does nothing to suggest there is any truth to that. [In the days of Mary and Joseph, a man is not complete until he was married (ref Gen 2). An unmarried man could not become a Jewish priest, he was incomplete - as the scripture says. Virginity was not a virtue of the married in Jesus' day.] Morever, there is no record from those who truly could have known that she herself was or was not immaculately conceived. This is all acquired by logical conclusion overstepping the testimony (the absense of support) from those who KNEW the holy family. Yes, Rome oversteps her boundaries on things like this. They say, we have "decided this is true, therefore it is." Neither the Orthodox, since you mention them, nor the Anglicans are so self-assured about things they cannot possibly know. But since the Catholic Church has a Pope to whom they have granted such divine authority, they think they can do that.

Apostolic succession-Apostolic authority:
It's a matter of authority. Bp Irenaeus is the one that claimed those closest to Jesus have the greater authority, because they were with Him. Those closest to the apostles, have greater authority over those who came later.

Converts to Rome from C of E:
Those who leave ECUSA/Anglican often do so to get away from the 'problems' of sexuality and womens ordination. However, the CC has her 'problems' also.[/quote]

[Myles Domini]

Certain arguments presented therein are like saying that Elijah and Jeremiah were not men because he remained a virgin all his life. Yet when Jesus came they asked him if he was both figures underscoring their importance. Some of what is said is also patently false e.g. Bishop Irenaeus says all churches must agree with the Roman Church adv.her.3.3.2.

Really I would direct him to the writings of Venerable Cardinal Newman and for the scriptural basis of certain doctrines the work of Dr Scott Hahn has 'flesh'.

[jswranch]

I plan to tackle his objection to Mary ever virgin first. I am trying to formulate a Summa Theologica pattern response (Treatise, question, articles, objections, replies).



A low hanging fruit I could use some help from you guys with in my argument:

How do I prove an apocraphal book (Proto-evangelum of James) may be used as a reliable historical reference? I need it, since it seems to be the only source (before the third century) that cites her perpetual virginity.

Dad believes there is no reliable source from those who truly could have known that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. He finds this belief to be acquired by logical conclusions only. Such logical conclusions are considered to be overstepping.



[HT to Nick on the directory as always]

[cmotherofpirl]

Here is an interestng blog that might be of some help. This priest just converted.

[url="http://cantuar.blogspot.com/"]http://cantuar.blogspot.com/[/url]

[Kristen]

Is your father familiar with the works/writings of Cardinal Newman and his conversion? That may be something that speaks to him.

Also, if he disagrees with so much of ECUSA, why has he stayed? Simply because there is no where else he wants to go?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='jswranch' post='993540' date='May 31 2006, 10:26 AM']
I plan to tackle his objection to Mary ever virgin first. I am trying to formulate a Summa Theologica pattern response (Treatise, question, articles, objections, replies).
A low hanging fruit I could use some help from you guys with in my argument:

How do I prove an apocraphal book (Proto-evangelum of James) may be used as a reliable historical reference? I need it, since it seems to be the only source (before the third century) that cites her perpetual virginity.

Dad believes there is no reliable source from those who truly could have known that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. He finds this belief to be acquired by logical conclusions only. Such logical conclusions are considered to be overstepping.
[HT to Nick on the directory as always]
[/quote]


Well the FACT is that all of the early, post apostolic church from North to South and East to West believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Now without email and telephones, even snail mail, how could they possibly have all come to this conclusion unless it was taught by the Apostles. Do you get my drift? The Apostles spread out in all directions and if you read the Church Fathers, the PV of Mary was held by all with the exception of Tertullian, likely influenced by his Montanism. These people hardly left their own area in a lifetime and yet somehow this "logical" "unbiblical" conclusion that Mary remained a virgin had spread throughout the world. How?

I don't think that you should try to convince him that a work of AN early church father is in any way authortative in and of itself and reliable in and of itself. The PEV James is not. However taken with the rest of the Church fathers where it is consistent that makes it reliable in those areas.

My approach would be to show him that those named as Jesus brothers and sisters in scriptures cannot be shown to be Mary's children. That is the virgin Mary. For instance I have a thread on Matt 27 somewhere below where I all but prove that James and Joseph, named as Jesus brothers are not Mary's children. From a literal view you cannot prove one way or another that Mary had no children from scripture. However from a typological/allegorical view you can. I would then bring in the parrellel between Mary and the Ark of the Coventant (2 Sam 6, vs. luke 1, the Visitation Narritive). Catholic theology on Mary becomes very apparent when one sees this parrellel in scripture. With regard to PV. The ark was extremely pure, so much so that if any man touched it they would die. This implies PV. I would bring him along slowly on the AOC however. Just expose him to the parrelel first. Then bring him along slowly on how it supports Catholic dogma on Mary if he is open to the parrellel in scripture.

[jswranch]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='996036' date='Jun 3 2006, 06:12 AM']
Here is an interestng blog that might be of some help. This priest just converted.

[url="http://cantuar.blogspot.com/"]http://cantuar.blogspot.com/[/url]
[/quote]

[quote name='Kristen' post='996552' date='Jun 4 2006, 12:29 PM']
Is your father familiar with the works/writings of Cardinal Newman and his conversion? That may be something that speaks to him.

Also, if he disagrees with so much of ECUSA, why has he stayed? Simply because there is no where else he wants to go?
[/quote]

Thanks for the references to the [s]conversion[/s] reconciliation stories. The cantuar.blogspot priest was under the same bishop as my dad (Bp. Jack Iker). They probably know each other. What is the cantuar.blogspot writter's name?

I do not think he has read much of Newman.

He stays with ECUSA because he likes the Anglican Church (Branch theory... Rome, Antioch, Canterbury). He is currently involved in a movement, Anglican Communion Network, to separate themselves from the ECUSA but stay in full communion with Canterbury.

I am keeping the testimonies of Newman, Al Kimel (pontifications.blog), and cantuar.blog for when I think dad is ready for them. I am not certain this is the time.


[quote name='thessalonian' post='997249' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:17 AM']
Well the FACT is that all of the early, post apostolic church from North to South and East to West believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Now without email and telephones, even snail mail, how could they possibly have all come to this conclusion unless it was taught by the Apostles. Do you get my drift? The Apostles spread out in all directions and if you read the Church Fathers, the PV of Mary was held by all with the exception of Tertullian, likely influenced by his Montanism. These people hardly left their own area in a lifetime and yet somehow this "logical" "unbiblical" conclusion that Mary remained a virgin had spread throughout the world. How?[/quote]
[u]The problem he has with the de fide belief of the PV is not that it untrue, but that the foundation the CC uses to make it a de fide is not valid.[/u] He probably agrees the 'breatheren/until' does not apply to other children.

Edited June 5, 2006 by jswranch

[jswranch]

Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Protoevangelium of James 120AD

Writtings of Origen 244AD



Do we have nothing earlier? Do we have nothing between these two accounts that affirm the PV? I have scanned the directory.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='jswranch' post='997362' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:00 AM']
Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Protoevangelium of James 120AD

Writtings of Origen 244AD
Do we have nothing earlier? Do we have nothing between these two accounts that affirm the PV? I have scanned the directory.


[/quote]

Those look like the earliest. Once again however, from their on the belief is widespread and there is NO denial of the doctrine by any of the few writers prior to 120, i.e. Ignatius, Clemnt, etc. One cannot say that someone who makes no statement is against the doctrine. Yet there is a heavy count on the other side of the doctrine over the first five centures. That is my point. Once again, the Bible is inconclusive (that can be proven) from a literal standpoint. It NEVER says Bob, son of Mary or Jane, daugher of Mary.

[phatcatholic]

you also have to remember that in the first 3-4 centuries of the Church, Christians were supremely focused on the proper way to understand Christ. once true belief regarding Chist was understood and defended, more people were able to see the implications of this Christology in the life of Mary. it was their focus that explains the scarcity of evidence, not a lack of faith.

[jswranch]

Thanks for the input. I am finishing a paper to my father on the perpetual virginity (+2 days). How can I get someone to read it? It is currently 16 pages and too big to post.


Keep my work in your prayers. I am asking Justin Martyr to be the patron on this one.

Edited June 6, 2006 by jswranch

[cmotherofpirl]

can you put it somewhere where people can link to it?

[Kristen]

Will your Father be attending the upcoming General Convention? Does he struggle with the Anglican/Episcopal Church, or is he content with sticking with the "new" group in communion w/ Canterberry after the inevitable fallout at Convention this June?

Sounds like your Father thinks Rome has gone wrong. But doesn't he think it is wierd that he is following a church, a small denomination, that he also believes is corrupted, based out of England, and that began based on false premises?

Edited June 6, 2006 by Kristen

[jswranch]

[quote name='Kristen' post='998641' date='Jun 6 2006, 01:48 PM']
Will your Father be attending the upcoming General Convention? Does he struggle with the Anglican/Episcopal Church, or is he content with sticking with the "new" group in communion w/ Canterberry after the inevitable fallout at Convention this June?

Sounds like your Father thinks Rome has gone wrong. But doesn't he think it is wierd that he is following a church, a small denomination, that he also believes is corrupted, based out of England, and that began based on false premises?
[/quote]
Dad is part of the ACN which hopes to split from the ECUSA yet remain in full communion with the Anglicans (unlike other splinter Episcopal groups).

No, he does not think it is wierd. Yes, he thinks the CC has it wrong, but he is a branch theorist with the three legs of the Catholic Church consists of the Church of Rome, the Church of Antioch and the Church of London. I am not sure of the inevitable fallout at the convention.

[phatcatholic]

wow, the "Church of London" in the same category with the Church of Rome and the Church of Antioch...........now i've seen it all