Orthodox and Marian Beliefs

[Hesychios]

As a Lutheran, this is where we draw the line. We would say that Jesus is the ‘greatest example of humility and sanctity.’

I am not going to say I disagree with you here, but I think that we need to recognize this whole example in the context of ‘creatures’.

Saint Mary of Nazareth is the best example of a creature of God, in our general and traditional opinion. In our estimation she surpasses all (all other creatures, that is).

Interestingly, in Jesus own words, we see a similar compliment accorded to Saint John the Forerunner, and it is not recordeed (as far as I can tell) of Jesus Christ ever saying that of anyone else, including his own mother.

“I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Luke 7:28 NAB

“Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
Mttw 11:11 NAB

This is the Word of the Lord, yet I think we can safely assume He excludes Himself from the comparison (though He never specifically says so).

 

[Cavaradossi]

As a Lutheran, this is where we draw the line. We would say that Jesus is the ‘greatest example of humility and sanctity.’

The Orthodox would not necessarily disagree. Christ is, in truth, the very first true and complete human in existence. But whereas the unity in Christ is natural, our manner of unity with the divine is energetic, just as an iron passed through fire becomes hot by participation but not by nature, so do we become like god not by nature but by our participation. In that way, one might say that the Theotokos is the example par excellence of our particular manner of unity with God.

 

[GraceDK]

On the other hand, many Catholics nowadays treat the Theotokos as if she is our savior. There is extreme devotion to her that you hardly hear about Christ anyway. That is why Protestants keeps accusing Catholics of worshiping Mary, and for some they might be right.

I think for both sides, we need to find the proper amount of devotion. We can’t go full on one way or the other. The middle is always the solution, more often than not.

Brother, I agree with you that we should not become excessive and cause scandal. However I cant help but comment. I have an evangelical friend. He said to me, “the orthodox worship Mary. the catholics are not that extreme.”

 

[GraceDK]

As a Lutheran, this is where we draw the line. We would say that Jesus is the ‘greatest example of humility and sanctity.’

As a Catholic I would agree. He is our greatest example of humility, purity, love, righteousness and mercy. No competition. He is the one who knows us best and the one who is closest to us… more than any creature that has ever lived. Christ alone boar our sins up on the cross, indeed knows man’s hearts completely… all these things, while being fully human, and fully God. Being human he was tested in everything, yet without sin. Therefore we don’t have competing examples, but we might still value and venerate heroes of faith such as Abraham, John the Baptist, Mary and others both before and after the Events.
As Jesus said: “No disciple is greater than his master” but he also said: “you will do greater things than these.” He also said: "Follow my example for I am meek… "

 

[Hesychios]

… I have an evangelical friend. He said to me, “the orthodox worship Mary. the catholics are not that extreme.”

I find that amusing. It made me laugh when I read it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I find that amusing. It made me laugh when I read it.

Those silly evangelicals never can get it right. We worship those nifty pictures of Mary we hang up on our walls, not Mary herself.

 

[Hesychios]

Those silly evangelicals never can get it right. We worship those nifty pictures of Mary we hang up on our walls, not Mary herself.

 

[GaryTaylor]

An eye witness who recorded it? No.

I believe we can reduce this thread to this statement…FAITH is what it comes down to. Now doesn’t it.

What exactly do you have to believe as required belief with the Mother of God in the EO? And what level of importance is attributed to Her? Non Dogmatic is an affirmative with the Dormition? Why isn’t this all stated as Document of Faith such as on Wiki-Pedia which would lead one to believe otherwise. Such as with Feast Days, whats days in regards to Mary are Holy Days of Obligation? Any?

So NO Required belief with Mary? What must one believe in regards to Mary? What about the Early Church Fathers? So Theotokos is the “only” affirmative?

Athanasius lifelong “obsession” was to insist Mary was the mediator between Creator and Creature was he wrong about this and right about all else? Lots of Saints agree.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not going to say I disagree with you here, but I think that we need to recognize this whole example in the context of ‘creatures’.

Saint Mary of Nazareth is the best example of a creature of God, in our general and traditional opinion. In our estimation she surpasses all (all other creatures, that is).

Interestingly, in Jesus own words, we see a similar compliment accorded to Saint John the Forerunner, and it is not recordeed (as far as I can tell) of Jesus Christ ever saying that of anyone else, including his own mother.

“I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Luke 7:28 NAB

“Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
Mttw 11:11 NAB

This is the Word of the Lord, yet I think we can safely assume He excludes Himself from the comparison (though He never specifically says so).

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumb...ebloba-65118c602881bf5280bb07373d51ca14_h.jpg

The NAB? Prophet Michael. I believe the Saints spoke on this in regard to the Mother of God also.

Course we just use…CCC 523 St. John the Baptist is the Lord’s immediate precursor or forerunner, sent to prepare his way. “Prophet of the Most High”, John surpasses all the prophets, of whom he is the last. He inaugurates the Gospel, already from his mother’s womb welcomes the coming of Christ, and rejoices in being “the friend of the bridegroom”, whom he points out as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. Going before Jesus “in the spirit and power of Elijah”, John bears witness to Christ in his preaching, by his Baptism of conversion, and through his martyrdom.

God in not of issue in the Thread, we know who the Creator is. Is that required belief in the EO? Hard to tell what is required there in belief. Where does one find this statement?

We sure do need to keep perspective in relation to God, and those sharing in the Sonship in Heaven now also called Saints.

And how does the Queen of Heaven work in relation to this configuration?

How does the NAB thinking work in relation to the Queen of Heaven?
Seems like this is a dilemma for the EO.

 

[Hesychios]

The NAB? Prophet Michael. I believe the Saints spoke on this in regard to the Mother of God also.

Sure, but I was addressing one person’s concerns, and quoting Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior.

BTW, I always quote the New American Bible when I post on this forum. I have always done so (except for two or three times I quoted the Douay Rheims) and you can check the archives for verification. Do you have an issue with that?

God in not of issue in the Thread, we know who the Creator is. Is that required belief in the EO? Hard to tell what is required there in belief. Where does one find this statement?

I am not sure what you are driving at.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let me ask from the EO perspective, in light of everyting documented for close to 12centuries, would you say the veneration of Mary has remained the same throughout to date? Has it decreased, or is it just a matter of emphasis to remain focused on the Lord first? Thus remained the same?

The Ecumenical Councils are an affirmative, Saints etc. I get that, I seem to be missing something here in regards to Mary. Is it a secondary thought keeping the Trinity/Eucharist/Church first, or is it viewed as the Deposit of Faith where there is a need to understand the entire picture?

BTW I agree its a path where one must clearly understand Creator and the place of God, being of utmost importance. I suppose I can understand the concern here.

My apology to all and anyone offended, I know I become confrontative in regards to this topic.

I find the aspect of Faith no different in aspect to the entire Deposit of Faith. In other words I have found that in regards to Mary, being Catholic one can sign in their blood a statement that I believe such and such. Yet if in fact if you kinda believe, then you really don’t believe, for example the Eucharist comes to mind. I find talking to people in person they in essense have a kinda belief. Seems to me this often resides more in a type of possible or probable affirmative instead of a unwavering Faith thus belief. Course just to use as an example.

In relation to the fact God can do anything which all would agree on, I don’t see this any different is regards to the Eucharist or Mary for example. Course I could further go with the Saints, Sacaments etc. However I suppose one would see where I am coming from here.

This Faith is the foundation in and of God, thus Grace, maybe its me, I never see in my mind anything but God and thus His Kingdom. I pretty much see it all through time and relative in importance to the Lord. No different with prayer, church, etc etc. I always though about the Cross from very early on, truth is nothing has changed in this regard. I don’t see anything distract, I see the mysteries unfold, granted not as quick as I would like, nevertheless they do and have.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sure, but I was addressing one person’s concerns, and quoting Jesus Christ our Lord God and Savior.

BTW, I always quote the New American Bible when I post on this forum. I have always done so (except for two or three times I quoted the Douay Rheims) and you can check the archives for verification. Do you have an issue with that?

I am not sure what you are driving at.

I have one also, as bad as some claim it is, there are aspects I like about it. In this particular instance, I see it as a contrast. The orginal language context comes to mind.

No though I have no issue, I think it can be distracting in this case with the order of Grace, is all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not sure what you are driving at.

Let me ask you a personal question Michael. Growing up did you have family praying the Rosary? I would imagine you were just as much subjected as I was? Which of course I didn’t pay much attention to for a very long time. If so how did this affect you Michael?

 

[Hesychios]

Let me ask you a personal question…

This thread is not about the rosary. If you want to compare notes on something, or reminisce about the past, you can PM me.

My post was addressed to a self identified Lutheran, and I didn’t post anything I feel a Roman Catholic could not normally subscribe to. Your line of questioning is quite a puzzle to me, but don’t take it the wrong way, I have always liked and respected you.

 

[benjohnson]

I am not going to say I disagree with you here, but I think that we need to recognize this whole example in the context of ‘creatures’.

Saint Mary of Nazareth is the best example of a creature of God, in our general and traditional opinion. In our estimation she surpasses all (all other creatures, that is).

That’s fair!

I have tremendous respect for Mary’s ability to do God’s will without reservation - I hope would be able to emulate her.

I would also say at a practical level, she is one of God’s greatest evangelists.

Certainly she is God’s most perfect creature with her Immaculate Conception and continued sinlessness - Lutheran’s believe this, but we just don’t make a large point of it.

Cavaradossi:

Those silly evangelicals never can get it right. We worship those nifty pictures of Mary we hang up on our walls, not Mary herself.

Cavaradossi, you own me a new keyboard:! I seemed to have spit my drink all over it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Few historical links in light of Apostolic Church’s view from early on.

google.com/url?q=http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/more-on-the-immaculate-conception-in-eastern-orthodoxy/&sa=U&ei=Z5XIT7TXLYrk9ASb95mqDw&ved=0CB4QFjAD&sig2=8amiGu8GVGYVyeox3bPXUQ&usg=AFQjCNH1q8zSpZSik6IenDeeeJAMvAc1hQ

This one cites the actual works and page’s

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/imconcep.htm&sa=U&ei=v6PIT66OK4L-9QT_s_D2Dg&ved=0CBQQFjAB&sig2=Vmr7vYFuOEmhnUa3Uo1Acw&usg=AFQjCNHXTy49Id-jiH9Tx019RoIMrhbvZg

Needless to say at one point or another “most” these points I have made plus others, some most recent some earlier in the same conversation as a topic.

Still in denial the patristics from the first century foward relate directly to the IC?

 

[Cavaradossi]

What exactly do you have to believe as required belief with the Mother of God in the EO? And what level of importance is attributed to Her? Non Dogmatic is an affirmative with the Dormition? Why isn’t this all stated as Document of Faith such as on Wiki-Pedia which would lead one to believe otherwise. Such as with Feast Days, whats days in regards to Mary are Holy Days of Obligation? Any?

So NO Required belief with Mary? What must one believe in regards to Mary? What about the Early Church Fathers? So Theotokos is the “only” affirmative?

That is not an Orthodox way to understand the Christian faith, as the Orthodox faith cannot be divided into essentials and non-essentials, as some from other Christian bodies attempt to do to their own faith. The problem is that the modern mind has been poisoned into believing that truth is based upon correspondence with the physical world. Thus, to a mind poisoned by this blinding and crippling disease, the truth in an icon of our Savior, Jesus Christ, is contained in how faithfully it resembles the form of the man, Jesus of Nazareth; the truth of God’s creation of man is based upon its correspondence with the historical origin of man, and therefore the teaching of man’s creation is threatened by the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution; and the truth of Noah’s Ark hinges upon the question of whether it happened historically, and so people foolishly grasp at straws, investigating stories of such-and-such culture in such-and-such far-off land which also has a story of a great flood, which might settle their anxiety as to whether the narrative of Noah’s Ark is “true”.

As Panayiotis Nellas writes in his book Deification in Christ:It thus becomes clear that the essence of man is not found in the matter from which he was created but in the archetype on the basis of which he was formed and towards which he tends. It is precisely for this reason that, in the patristic treatment of the theme of the origin of man, the theory of evolution does not create a problem—just as for the believer the form of the wood from which an icon has been made does not create a problem. Science may well have an obligation to study the “matter” from which man was formed, but every serious scientist knows that it is impossible for him to undertake a thorough investigation, using the objective scientific method, of the “archetype” on the basis of which man was formed. As the truth of an icon lies in the person it represents, so the truth of man lies in his archetype. And this is precisely because the archetype is that which organizes, seals and gives shape to matter, and which simultaneously attracts it towards itself. The archetype constitutes the ontological content of the phrase “in the image.”

pg. 33Is the Dormition true? Yes. Did the Dormition happen exactly as it is presented in the narrative? That is unlikely. Does it matter if the narrative completely corresponds to history? No, because that is not important. The title Theotokos is on a completely different level than the Dormition, because we must affirm the historical truth that a Virgin, Mary, conceived and gave birth to a son, Jesus of Nazareth, Who is the incarnate Word of God. If you look at Orthodox devotions to Mary, like the Akathist hymn, or the small Paraklesis, they are clearly centered around the Virgin Mary’s role as the Mother of our God (which is unique to her alone) and as an intercessor for and helper of mankind (which in Orthodox devotions are not roles unique to her, but they belong to all of the saints together).

Athanasius lifelong “obsession” was to insist Mary was the mediator between Creator and Creature was he wrong about this and right about all else? Lots of Saints agree.

Could you please provide quotations from St. Athanasius to show that he believed that Mary is the sole operative mediator between creature and creator, as the title Mediatrix of all grace implies?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Few historical links in light of Apostolic Church’s view from early on.

google.com/url?q=http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/more-on-the-immaculate-conception-in-eastern-orthodoxy/&sa=U&ei=Z5XIT7TXLYrk9ASb95mqDw&ved=0CB4QFjAD&sig2=8amiGu8GVGYVyeox3bPXUQ&usg=AFQjCNH1q8zSpZSik6IenDeeeJAMvAc1hQ

This one cites the actual works and page’s

google.com/url?q=http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/imconcep.htm&sa=U&ei=v6PIT66OK4L-9QT_s_D2Dg&ved=0CBQQFjAB&sig2=Vmr7vYFuOEmhnUa3Uo1Acw&usg=AFQjCNHXTy49Id-jiH9Tx019RoIMrhbvZg

Needless to say at one point or another “most” these points I have made plus others, some most recent some earlier in the same conversation as a topic.

Still in denial the patristics from the first century foward relate directly to the IC?

Nobody is in denial that such texts exist. We simply disagree with your interpretation of certain texts, because you exclude from your hermeneutic process all sorts of important details for interpretation, and most especially because you interpret the fact that because somebody teaches something, he teaches something dogmatically. These texts need to be taken in light of the entire corpus of Eastern Christian literature, especially in light of the few Eastern Fathers like St. John Chrysostom, who believed that Mary had committed minor sins (which nobody is recommending should be made into a dogma, I wonder why?). What remains the prime Orthodox reason for the rejection of the immaculate conception is that there is no justification for making it a dogma. It is still an acceptable, if now a minority opinion within Orthodoxy, as it has never been condemned as a heresy nor confirmed as a dogma (nor should it ever be condemned or confirmed, as it does not pertain to the salvation of mankind).

I find the practice of prooftexting to be highly off-putting, because it does not help foster mutual understanding, but it only builds walls up higher. Maybe if people were more interested in taking the time to learn about the Orthodox, how we understand our faith and how we interpret the fathers, instead of trying to prove us wrong at every turn with lists of quotations (a practice of the Latins which dates at least to the Council of Florence), we might be more enthusiastic towards the idea of resuming communion.

 

[GraceDK]

Could you please provide quotations from St. Athanasius to show that he believed that Mary is the sole operative mediator between creature and creator, as the title Mediatrix of all grace implies?

Even if such a quotation existed it would be erroneous.
“Mediatrix” is not Catholic dogma. Neither do most Catholics think it should be. Why? Because its not necessary, Secondly because it only creates confusion.
Christ is our mediator, no one comes to the Father except through Him.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Even if such a quotation existed it would be erroneous.
“Mediatrix” is not Catholic dogma. Neither do most Catholics think it should be. Why? Because its not necessary, Secondly because it only creates confusion.
Christ is our mediator, no one comes to the Father except through Him.

I agree.