tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post114306595197335555..comments2022-04-27T23:07:59.833-04:00Comments on Conversi ad Dominum: Diagnosing the AilmentFr John W Fentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143649112503112012006-03-29T11:18:00.000-05:002006-03-29T11:18:00.000-05:00This doesn't have anything to do with a difference...This doesn't have anything to do with a difference between the Reformation's use of the word "believe" and some modern "flattened" usage of the word. It has to do with the difference between all the things the Confessions confess by simply _stating_ them, and this one thing that, instead of stating, they attribute to general belief.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143519915270952282006-03-27T23:25:00.000-05:002006-03-27T23:25:00.000-05:00Dr Phillips,I understand the difficulty. The assum...Dr Phillips,<BR/><BR/>I understand the difficulty. The assumption is that "as it is believed" is no different than "as some people think" or "as it is said by some."<BR/><BR/>That's understandable given the poor translations of the phrase, and the way we sloppily use "believe" in the vernacular. However, the German grammar simply does not bear out this understanding. And neither does the context of a confessional document.<BR/><BR/>So you asked:<BR/><BR/><I>"It is believed that Christ rose from the dead?"</I><BR/><BR/>Now really--is that <I><B>not</B></I> believed. Only by unbelievers. But by Christians, of course the resurrection is believed! It certainly ought not be assumed, and it can't be proven. But do you see--I'm using the word "believe" in its confessional, intended sense; and not pressing it into the common day flattened use.<BR/><BR/>So again, my point: check the German grammar.Fr John W Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143500584217417672006-03-27T18:03:00.000-05:002006-03-27T18:03:00.000-05:00Fr. Fenton,They did not add such distancing langua...Fr. Fenton,<BR/><BR/>They did not add such distancing language when they mentioned Christ's departure from the closed tomb, his entry into the upper room, or the Real Presence, did they. The clause "as it is believed" is a qualification. Can you imagine the confessors saying, "It is believed that Christ rose from the dead?" or "The fruits of union with Christ are forgiveness, peace with God, and, it is said, eternal life"? The clause is a clear indication that the example itself was not intended to be a binding part of the confession, but was rather a point not worth arguing one way or the other, introduced simply because of its utility as an analogy.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143492749164050582006-03-27T15:52:00.000-05:002006-03-27T15:52:00.000-05:00Dr Philiips,Perhaps I have too high a regard for t...Dr Philiips,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I have too high a regard for the Formula of Concord and the scholarship of David Chytraeus, as well as those who willingly signed it as their statement of faith, but it seems to me that in a document intended to confess one does not simply slide in a sociological or archeological statement, especially as the climactic example of the very point being made about the spiritual mode of Christ's presence--which, frankly, is the point of the entire article VII.<BR/><BR/>It seems, rather, that if that was the case--if the confessors were simply expressing a <I>vox populi</I> opinion--then they would have (a) listed it as such; (b) there, or elsewhere, refuted it; and (c) certainly not listed it with other clear biblical examples.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, to put not to fine a point on the matter, which other "common beliefs," listed in the confession to which one has pledged himself, may be disregarded as not necessary to be believed?Fr John W Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143480042578940092006-03-27T12:20:00.000-05:002006-03-27T12:20:00.000-05:00Father Fenton,The phrase you put in bold, "as it i...Father Fenton,<BR/><BR/>The phrase you put in bold, "as it is believed" was put there in order to note that such was a common belief. I agree with the Confessors that if the parturition did in fact happen according to that pious theory, then it was indeed a good example of the thing they were discussing in the passage you quote.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143479852525777962006-03-27T12:17:00.000-05:002006-03-27T12:17:00.000-05:00Fredric,I respect them. Respect does not, however...Fredric,<BR/><BR/>I respect them. Respect does not, however, preclude disagreement. This fact may be lost on you, as you yourself seem unable to disagree with someone without also randomly impugning his intelligence and humility.<BR/><BR/>So whatever. Go do your thing.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143343364806730802006-03-25T22:22:00.000-05:002006-03-25T22:22:00.000-05:00By the way, over at the blog "Pontifications" (my ...By the way, over at the blog "Pontifications" (my favorite blog of all blogs), there is quite a to do (with 40 postings to date) on a recent posting entitled "Are the Church Fathers Lutheran?" See:<BR/><BR/>http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1519#comments<BR/><BR/>It features a few of the same dramatis personae who seem to post comments here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143327297637059302006-03-25T17:54:00.000-05:002006-03-25T17:54:00.000-05:00Oops, I apologize for not giving the reference to ...Oops, I apologize for not giving the reference to the above quotation. It is FC SD VII.100.Fr John W Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143327226770573742006-03-25T17:53:00.000-05:002006-03-25T17:53:00.000-05:00The 1580 Book of Concord confesses the following:S...The 1580 Book of Concord confesses the following:<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like. This mode He used when He rose from the closed sepulcher, and passed through the closed door, and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, <I><B>as it is believed,</B> when He was born of His mother.</I><BR/><BR/>NOTE: The translation highlighted above is from the Triglotta (www.bookofconcord.org). The modern translations ignore the German grammatical construction, thereby weakening what is actually confessed.Fr John W Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143291653843666172006-03-25T08:00:00.000-05:002006-03-25T08:00:00.000-05:00Just to clarify, in light of the arrogance and lac...Just to clarify, in light of the arrogance and lack of respect for our Church Fathers and medieval scholars manifest in the last two responses...<BR/><BR/>I submit to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's firm teaching (in both the east and west) that the Mother of God's virginity was not violated by the birth of the Messiah (the previous post shows an unbelievable ignorance of human physiology) and that she remained a virgin (a pure vessel), without the impurity of Niddah for her entire life. <BR/><BR/>I guess that I can excuse your daft ignorance of the Torah of Niddah and of ta'hara for your flowery but adolescent statement that the Mother of God's perpetual purity "are matters of indifference". They were indeed matters of great importance to the Church Fathers (St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St Augustine, St. Justin the Martyr.....) as far as Christ's perfect fulfillment of the Law and tokens of Messiahship are concerned. <BR/><BR/>I'll base my beliefs on the teachings of the Church rather than with your "indifference".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143258217421255402006-03-24T22:43:00.000-05:002006-03-24T22:43:00.000-05:00Fredric said,"I now understand that you understand...Fredric said,<BR/><BR/>"I now understand that you understand that Christ's birth was miraculously accomplished without the violation of the virginity of Mary"<BR/><BR/>Actually... I shouldn't have begun my last post the way I did, because I can agree with that statement. All you talk of the signs of virginity just made me think you intended something other by those words. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. In any case, we have full disclosure now.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143258007137788122006-03-24T22:40:00.000-05:002006-03-24T22:40:00.000-05:00Fredric,No, I didn't say that either. Virginity i...Fredric,<BR/><BR/>No, I didn't say that either. Virginity is a question of what goes in, not what comes out. No birth has ever robbed anyone of her virginity. It's a question of conception, not parturition. If the Blessed Virgin lost her "signs of virginity" at birth, as I rather suspect she did, it had no bearing on her actual virginity. If I change the street signs, I do not thereby alter the street.<BR/><BR/>I am aware that the miraculous parturition was a common medieval belief, and expect that many of the Lutheran confessors believed in it, and had it in mind when they wrote the section in question. What they say, however, is that Mary gave birth to Christ and yet remained a virgin, and that's what I believe too.<BR/><BR/>The whole theological import of the virgin birth is that Jesus was the Son of God, not the son of Joseph. Whether he came out of the womb like a ghost, passing through the walls of the womb, and whether Mary maintained her virginity to the end of her days after giving birth to him, are matters of indifference to me.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143242711962821152006-03-24T18:25:00.000-05:002006-03-24T18:25:00.000-05:00I'm sorry, I apologize for my misunderstanding of ...I'm sorry, I apologize for my misunderstanding of the context in which you used the word. I now understand that you understand that Christ's birth was miraculously accomplished without the violation of the virginity of Mary, the Mother of God. Thanks for clearing that up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143239253204748842006-03-24T17:27:00.000-05:002006-03-24T17:27:00.000-05:00Frederic Einstein,You looked up the word "parturit...Frederic Einstein,<BR/><BR/>You looked up the word "parturition," but you didn't pay sufficient attention to the sentence in which it appeared. Otherwise, you could not have arrived at the conclusion that I think the birth of Christ impaired Mary's virginity. Mary was still a virgin after Christ was born. She was a virgin until Joseph "knew" her, if indeed he ever did.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143222469743627532006-03-24T12:47:00.000-05:002006-03-24T12:47:00.000-05:00Rev. Humann asked about the paradox of the purific...Rev. Humann asked about the paradox of the purification of St. Mary in relation to Niddah impurity.<BR/><BR/>You know, that's something that I've been researching via the Church fathers...<BR/><BR/>The question is, did St. Mary "voluntarily submit" to the Torah of becoming me'tahar (purification) because of Christ's perfect fulfillment of Torah or because she was indeed Ta'mei by giving birth "normally" (through the birth canal) to the Christ and needed to undergo the period of being made tahor????<BR/><BR/>St. Jerome explains that Christ was born miraculously without the shedding of any Niddah blood and thus was tahor, even after giving birth to the Christ (Martin Luther expouses this as well). He says that St. Luke's Gospel uses unusual language in 2.22 ("And when the days of her purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished"). (End of St. Jerome's remark)<BR/><BR/>Why would the Gospel<BR/>specify the seemingly unnecessary qualifier "according to the Law of Moses"? <BR/><BR/>According to Torah law (Rabbi Yishmoel whose academy flourished about 180 years before Christ's Incarnation), a woman who bore a child via Cesearian (sp?) section is considered ta'hor and thus is NOT Niddah and does not need to undergo the purification waiting period (see Vay'ikra 12).<BR/><BR/>However, in order that all things were fulfilled, St. Mary undertook the positive commandment of "purification from the Niddah of childbirth" as a "mitzvah li'shma" (a positive commandment done for its own sake rather than because of the requirement of doing so). <BR/><BR/>To assure us that this is the proper interpretation, St. Luke specifies "according to the Law of Moses" whereas by Christ's circumcision (which WAS indeed required by Torah Law), this unusual language "according to the Law of Moses" is not used. <BR/><BR/>Thus, we see the righteousness of the Mother of God in that she submitted to the purification offering (see Va'yikra 12) even though Christ's birth caused no impurity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143200493723930282006-03-24T06:41:00.000-05:002006-03-24T06:41:00.000-05:00frederick j. einstein wrote:Theotokos was not subj...frederick j. einstein wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Theotokos was not subject to Tu'mei Niddah</I><BR/><BR/>Most true indeed! Yet...<BR/><BR/><I>But indeed remained ta'hor after The Messiah's birth</I><BR/><BR/>If this were so, then what are we to make of Luke 2:22-24? Clearly, Mary was <I>tameh</I> with respect to Lev.12:1-8, which should by no means be conflated with Num.5. Do we not, indeed, keep the Feast of the Purification of Mary? <BR/><BR/>Very interesting blog, BTW!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143161092712480882006-03-23T19:44:00.000-05:002006-03-23T19:44:00.000-05:00Eric Phillips wrote:I wasn't saying anything about...Eric Phillips wrote:<BR/>I wasn't saying anything about the Lutheran Confessions' position on the parturition of our Lord, only his conception.<BR/><BR/>I reply:<BR/><BR/>Cute word -- "parturition". Thanks for your reply, even though I had to consult a medical dictionary to make sure of that word.<BR/> <BR/>I am really not all that knowledgable of the "Book of Concord", but on page 620, paragraph 24 of the Kolb/Wingart (sp?) translation, it plainly shows your statement, quoted above, to be utterly wrong. Unless you are trying to tell me that Kolb/Wingart (sp?) were incompetent translators, how can you distort the clear and unambiguous statement: <BR/><BR/>"He demonstrated his divine majesty in his mother's womb, in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore, she remained truly the Mother of God and at the same time a virgin"<BR/><BR/>to support the untenable position that Christ's birth caused the loss of the Theotokos' virginity???!! "..born of a virgin without violating her virginity" seems to be pretty unambiguous! <BR/><BR/>I won't even begin to discuss the necessary article of faith that Theotokos was not subject to Tu'mei Niddah, but indeed remained ta'hor after The Messiah's birth since she was subject to and subservient to Torah Law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143152506479583182006-03-23T17:21:00.000-05:002006-03-23T17:21:00.000-05:00Fr Fenton,Dr Phillips and I have been around the b...Fr Fenton,<BR/><BR/>Dr Phillips and I have been around the block several times on the issue of whether or not the FC teaches the <I>semper virgo</I>. I am firmly of your opinion on the matter, and he is firmly opposed to it. I do not believe that you will be able to move him.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the only thing that gives me the slightest doubt of my position on the matter is that a man of Dr Phillips's erudition and intellectual honesty opposes me.Chris Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03220498656377282715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143150334275199282006-03-23T16:45:00.000-05:002006-03-23T16:45:00.000-05:00Yes it does.Whether one renders the statement, "Sh...Yes it does.<BR/><BR/>Whether one renders the statement, "She remained a virgin" or "she has remained a virgin," both of which are acceptable, in context there is no necessary implication that this state of virginity persists to the present day.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143146312296164802006-03-23T15:38:00.000-05:002006-03-23T15:38:00.000-05:00Ronnie,I appreciate your kind words, and second yo...Ronnie,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your kind words, and second your uugh. It is an unfortunate by-product of what I've described elsewhere as "the conundrum called 'Lutheranism' by which we define ourselves, not as the true visible church, but as a movement or body which holds out to all Christendom a disembodied ideal."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mr Phillips:<BR/><BR/>Your "pious opinion" :) that the 1580 Book of Concord does not confess the perpetual virginity of Mary unfortunately does not coincide with the plain meaning of the German text--a meaning to which native-speaking Germans (regardless of confession) attest.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mr Strickert:<BR/><BR/>Regrettably, your scope of "other Lutherans" (and hence, your view of the historical and theological data) is rather narrow.Fr John W Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143142792650387372006-03-23T14:39:00.000-05:002006-03-23T14:39:00.000-05:00The translation of the Hebrew words given in the B...The translation of the Hebrew words given in the <A HREF="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1143137257-8393.html#8" REL="nofollow">BlueLetterBible</A> uses Strong's Hebrew dictionary definitions. While "people" is one of the meanings of the Hebrew word, the other more common meanings include "children" and "son". <BR/><BR/><I>If you wanted it to read as Mr. Vehse wants to distort it, you'd have to have the Hebrew read: "v'nachri l'ha'ban'im shel i'mi" which would be translated as "and a foreign stranger to the sons of my mother".</I><BR/><BR/>Which is how Young's Literal Translation says it: "A stranger I have been to my brother, And a foreigner to sons of my mother." And similar words exist for that verse in every major Bible translation I've seen. Now these Bible translations could all be wrong, but I have not seen any recognition of that in Lutheran documents or Bible concordances. (Any such references would be appreciated.)<BR/><BR/>Furthermore I am not asserting that the recognition of Mary's other children be established as dogma, even if the verse is read as "the sons of my mother". But as <A HREF="http://user.txcyber.com/~wd5iqr/tcl/conf_sub.htm" REL="nofollow">Robert Preus</A> and <A HREF="https://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2195" REL="nofollow">other Lutherans</A> have stated, the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is not a dogma either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143141464670510372006-03-23T14:17:00.000-05:002006-03-23T14:17:00.000-05:00Frederic Einstein,re: 1) I wasn't saying anything ...Frederic Einstein,<BR/><BR/>re: 1) I wasn't saying anything about the Lutheran Confessions' position on the parturition of our Lord, only his conception.<BR/><BR/>re: 2) That's right.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143140954745259552006-03-23T14:09:00.000-05:002006-03-23T14:09:00.000-05:00Friends,I want to reiterate that my comments about...Friends,<BR/><BR/>I want to reiterate that my comments about would-be travelers to Orthodoxy were not dierected at anyone here, especially the host of this blog. In fact, as a Lutheran, I often agree with the good reverend in his interpretation of doctrine, liturgics, confessional subscription, etc.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, as I wonder around the world-wide-web of Lutheran blogs I often get to feeling a little musty. If the Lutheran theological world is a closet I sometimes feel as if I'm stuck in my Aunt Thelma's, staring at outdated and irrelevant clothing.<BR/><BR/>Many of our churches are dying, for all practical purposes, while "conservatives and traditionalists" run around trying to parse some obscrure statement by CFW Walther. Meanwhile, the "liberals and CG folks" are trying set the world Ablaze with a movement that is about as relevant to the modern dying culture as a Donnie and Marie record. But hey, as long as we separate 'Law and Gospel' (another phrase that deserves a copryright or trademark) then we're okay.<BR/><BR/>Uugh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143139869239417092006-03-23T13:51:00.000-05:002006-03-23T13:51:00.000-05:00Mr Gentleman,You make a very good point. At the he...Mr Gentleman,<BR/><BR/>You make a very good point. At the heart of the matter is one's understanding of the Gospel. After all, if the modern Lutheran claim is that justification is the focus of all theology, then bishops, perpetual virginity, opposition to women's ordination, polity, etc., must all be tested against this question: "But what does that do to justification? How does having an ordained woman negate justification, or how does the perpetual virginity support and uphold justification."<BR/><BR/>A very good point indeed. And your contention, then, that is all depends one's view of the saving Gospel is right on the mark.<BR/><BR/>Now, this is not at all to suggest--nor do I think you do--a sort of "doctrinal reductionism" where everything is collapsed onto AC IV. It is rather, as modern Lutheranism does, to see AC IV as the lens through which everything else is to be read.<BR/><BR/>Those are my initial thoughts to your comment.Fr John W Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1143139685781391312006-03-23T13:48:00.000-05:002006-03-23T13:48:00.000-05:00Eric Phillips wrote:All they explicitly say is tha...Eric Phillips wrote:<BR/>All they explicitly say is that Mary remained a virgin despite the fact that she bore Christ--something that no Christian can dispute. <BR/><BR/>I ask for clarification:<BR/><BR/>So your statement infers that the Lutheran Confessions teach that:<BR/><BR/>1) The Blessed Virgin's signs of virginity (si'mon'im in Hebrew) were not violated by the giving of birth to The Messiah. <BR/><BR/>2) She may not have refrained from marital relations and further child-bearing after giving birth to The Christ.<BR/><BR/>Am I understanding you correctly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com