Orthodox and Marian Beliefs

  • Thread starter Thread starter carlos19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you read this differently?
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here, but yes, I believe so. I cannot read the actual book (p. 58 in particular does not have a preview, but comes up in individual paragraphs if you (name removed by moderator)ut the right search terms on Google Books), but it strikes me that this is about Christ not only in the passage that I quoted earlier (where you had erroneously claimed that it was St. Athanasius’ “obsession” to prove such about St. Mary, when the actual quoted text was about Christ as true God), but also in the passage you quote now, the relevant portion of which is “eventually received its theological justification from the church clarification of what was implied by the orthodox witness to him” (emphasis added). Who is the “Him” in this passage? Clearly it can’t be St. Mary, as she is not a “him”. Rather, I believe it is saying that the justification for the use of the term “Theotokos” is ultimately found in what is implied by Orthodox witness to CHRIST. And indeed, this is an inescapable conclusion, if you think about it: She is not “Theotokos” in relation to any other person, but because she bore Christ who is God.
Thoughts? You see this as incorrect?
What I see as incorrect is not any of St. Athanasius the Apostolic’s writings on this subject, but your insinuation that the great saint believed in St. Mary as mediatrix of all graces in accordance with the modern RC concept which, as GraceDK points out, not even all Catholics believe. This idea is absent from the Fathers, as far as I can tell, or at least absent from the writings of St. Athanasius as you have quoted and misquoted him.
 
First of all I never stated Mary was the sole operative of Grace, nor did I state Athanasius did. However, the CC theology defines this in the CCC and V-II which developes from Pope Leo XIII who I believe was the first to write an encyclical on this.

Where are the works of Augustine you are referring to and from where in context? And far as your Bible quote, I believe we have established Mary is not a Goddess, yet as we see by Athanasius [Queen] how this is fact works. Which is in line with CC teaching for sure. Now if you would like to discuss the Biblical Quote I will do that with in depth. Start another thread.

As to what you hope I do, I appeciate the concern, however if you have been following this thread and the coversation with Cav you will see how I view the Saints. I follow the Deposit of Faith of the CC and to that in how the Saints relate. No Saint is above that. As we can conclude many made contrary statements for many reasons. Some devoloped their theological though and changed their mind. etc. However we all know God is God, and understand Marys place in the order of Grace. Do you understand the CC teaching on Mary and Her place in the order of Grace?

You said; “Most Catholic’s” A CAF poll does not indicate MOST Catholics. There are over a Billion Catholic’s, 300-Thousand members of CAF, not all Catholic by far. How many took pary in the poll? Does that indicate MOST Catholics? Out of over a Billion Catholics when you can show well over 50% that you can state MOST Catholics. Its an incorrect statement and an opinion. I’m sorry you want to defend what you cannot and contnued to.

Thats an individual issue we as Catholic’s burden with Dogma when we “choose” to defend it. Thats not a reason “why” the Church acts with Dogma. The word is a word, so how do you mean is it controversial? In relation to what is already defined by the Church? Nothing needs to be further defined. Its all there now. Thats the point Hahn makes in his work. And he’s right all the doctrine is in place. Should catholics want to deal with Gods will defined by His Church is another issue. I find the more I study the CC work the more I understand they are absolutely correct in Morals and Faith.

I follow you thinking, however piety and reality with Gods Kingdom are very different issues. We can rest assure Mary has a very real place in Gods Kingdom. I don’t know where you get the impression anyone is talking about anything but God working through Mary as he wills. To think otherwise is heresy, which is what Athanasius addressed.

First no-one is talking Augustine so where are his quotes and from what works? And no you need to prove that. As of this point I have no idea what your talking but a claim about what Augustine states in regards to God and Mary how? And then you need to explain how his quotes apply to CC teaching and the Deposit of Faith. For he has made controversial statements when taken of context also. Predestination is a perfect example.And as you state above we need to understand how a Saint applys in relation to Constitution of the CC.

You first sentence’s are irrelevant to this conversation. Point to the third is yes Christ is the Second Person Trinity and another link by God the Father thus God. This has nothing to do with “if” Mary can mediate by the will of God as she is Queen and we have established how this works already. Thus CCC V-II.

I don’t know what another poster implied or how in relation to this. I’m clear on this situation, As far as Dogma, I believe they have all they need to make it a reality, my personal opinion is whatever the Magesterium does, I’m fine with, I understand the theology of this. I also think it needs better wording than what I have seen thus clarification. I don’t relish the thought. Nevertheless, if its Gods will it will be. I’m not over zealous about the idea, nor do ever discuss this particular topic for it I don’t have to defend it.

Peace
I am personally nauseated by the papist Dogma’s that you rc’s keep trotting out, and then calling yourselve’s christian…get a Bible preferably a King james Bible…lol

allsortsofannoyingstuff.blogspot.co.uk/
 
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. 😉
Rereading the thread, this (emphasized) jumped out at me.

It is incorrect.

Saint Athanasius is noted for defending the divinity of Jesus Christ over against Arianism, in other words he was dedicated to an orthodox conception of the Holy Trinity. It is for this reason he was banished more than once. He suffered greatly on this point.

One of the arguments used by his opponents, those who thought Jesus was a creature but not also divine, was to disparage His mother (being as she was, something like a single mother in the thought of the day, the Jews and Arians both used that tactic to show Jesus could not be God due to impure origins). For this reason, orthodox believers would rally to defense of her reputation, and magnify her. This is the context in which prayers of this type began to be written during the lifetime of Arius.

As to the prayer quoted here. It does not support the point you seem to be trying to make. Being granted all grace was as a recipient. The noble saint is appealing to her goodness, hoping for prayers from her.

We all receive some grace, undeserving and helpless as we are it is always given to us, we never can just ‘take’ grace or ‘give’ grace, it is not a commodity for storing, we can’t parcel it out. We act on the Grace of God. It is through the Grace of God that we can do anything, even pray for one another. This is how grace is mediated, we act upon it. Grace is used as a verb, not a noun. Saint Mary of Nazareth was indeed ‘highly favored’ in this regard, in appealing to this great goodness in her the saint seeks her prayers, not a parcel.

Grace is God.

"First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time. "
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus 1 Tim 2 1:6

" …we do not cease praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding to live in a manner worthy of the Lord, so as to be fully pleasing, in every good work bearing fruit and growing in the knowledge of God, strengthened with every power, in accord with His glorious might, for all endurance and patience, with joy giving thanks to the Father, who has made you fit to share in the inheritance of the holy ones in light.

He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in Him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.

For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven."
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus 1 Collosians 9:20

" … let no one boast about human beings, for everything belongs to you, Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or the present or the future: all belong to you, and you to Christ, and Christ to God."
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus 1 Corinthians 3 21:23

The above three citations are quoted by the Old Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of Christ the Mediator.
A mediator is one who brings estranged parties to an amicable agreement. In New Testament theology the term invariably implies that the estranged beings are God and man, and it is appropriated to Christ, the One Mediator.
 
Saint Athanasius is noted for defending the divinity of Jesus Christ over against Arianism, in other words he was dedicated to an orthodox conception of the Holy Trinity. It is for this reason he was banished more than once. He suffered greatly on this point.
I follow your thinking, I agree with the thoughts on Athanasius, yet he could not have done what he did without addressing Mary. In this case Goddess. What I would like to see is the footnote to view the work where the Prof paraphrased. I’m gonna grab the book monday when I’m downtown.

Nevertheless I see no error in any of the thinking in either case, the book or prayer.
 
dzheremi according to Athanasius does Mary as Queen mediate in our Salvation?
We are not discussing whether or not she is a mediator (this is somewhat tricky, as a Catholic would probably say “If you ask for her intercession, then she is a mediator”, but the reality of the situation is more complicated than that), but whether or not St. Athanasius used this modern RC concept of “Mediatrix” with the RC-specific understanding in mind, which I think it is clear that he did not.
Whats the OO teaching on this?
According to the relevant section in Fr. Tadros Malaty’s “St Mary in the Orthodox Concept”, her role as mediator is confirmed by her role as the Mother of God, for as she received her role as mother of the Incarnate God, it was with “a responsibility for unceasing work” on behalf of His Church, which is realized of course through His flesh (as we say, the Church is the body of Christ). (p. 68-69; “The Mystery of Her Intercession”)
Is the deposit of faith different than what Athanasius states in his prayer?
Of course not, but also we would not consider any one text in isolation to be establishing the boundaries of the faith. St. Athanasius is but one source, as St. Cyril is another, as St. Dioscoros is another, as St. Shenouda the Archimandrite is another, etc.
I don’t want to read OO links though I’d like to hear your personal thoughts? Thus Queen, Grace, Intercede/mediate.
Well, sorry, I already gave you one. 🙂 I responded piece by piece in order to make the post more easily digestible, so I didn’t see this until just now. Sorry. But also Orthodoxy is not the religion of me and my personal opinion, so… 😃

But my personal opinion is in line with what I’ve already posted. We know proper devotion to the Theotokos through ancient and modern sources (e.g., St. Athanasius the Apostolic, St. Ephrem the Syrian, but also Fr. Tadros Malaty, HH Pope Shenouda III, etc.), not through a mix of ancient and modern ideas. The Marian devotion of the Coptic Church (and all the Orthodox churches) is of course quite strong, as you can learn through our Theotokias (hymns to St. Mary), but does not include certain popular ideas that are not found in the Fathers. It is not necessary to make St. Mary “the Mediatrix of all graces” or what have you, as though there is any greater role she can play by adding new, potentially confusing, and potentially heretical titles and powers that even make your own RC communion somewhat uncomfortable.
 
Of course. We are not discussing whether or not she is a mediator, but whether or not St. Athanasius used this modern RC concept of “Mediatrix” with the RC-specific understanding in mind, which I think it is clear that he did not.

According to the relevant section in Fr. Tadros Malaty’s “St Mary in the Orthodox Concept”, her role as mediator is confirmed by her role as the Mother of God, for as she received her role as mother of the Incarnate God, it was with “a responsibility for unceasing work” on behalf of His Church, which is realized of course through His flesh (as we say, the Church is the body of Christ). (p. 68-69; “The Mystery of Her Intercession”)

Of course not, but also we would not consider any one text in isolation to be establishing the boundaries of the faith. St. Athanasius is but one source, as St. Cyril is another, as St. Dioscoros is another, as St. Shenouda the Archimandrite is another, etc.

Well, sorry, I already gave you one. 🙂 I responded piece by piece in order to make the post more easily digestible, so I didn’t see this until just now. Sorry. But also Orthodoxy is not the religion of me and my personal opinion, so… 😃

But my personal opinion is in line with what I’ve already posted. We know proper devotion to the Theotokos through ancient and modern sources (e.g., St. Athanasius the Apostolic, St. Ephrem the Syrian, but also Fr. Tadros Malaty, HH Pope Shenouda III, etc.), not through a mix of ancient and modern ideas. The Marian devotion of the Coptic Church (and all the Orthodox churches) is of course quite strong, as you can learn through our Theotokias (hymns to St. Mary), but does not include certain popular ideas that are not found in the Fathers. It is not necessary to make St. Mary “the Mediatrix of all graces” or what have you, as though there is any greater role she can play by adding new, potentially confusing, and potentially heretical titles and powers that even make your own RC communion somewhat uncomfortable.
Thanks, as I had said to Michael. I’ll check the footnote Jer, I can’t find the actual work and I have read a bunch of it this morning.

Right though I don’t disagree with your thinking, to be polite “ALL” is my concern;) I’ll read the link. I’ve read a bit on this already. Right I know there’s unwavering belief and stance on this in OO, its admirable.
 
There’s nothing to read in the link (it is the audio of a hymn), and please also check my edit of the post you’ve quoted. I realized after reading Hesychios’ excellent post that I was not exactly clear in my opening line regarding Orthodox teaching as concerns “mediator”; we accept no mediator other than Christ (again, see Fr. Tadros’ book, p. 67 and following), but the concept by which we see the intercession of the saints (including St. Mary, of course) can lead to some confusion between Orthodox and Catholic ideas, particularly if you have been both (as I have). As evidence, I just did it myself. :o Lord have mercy. (Also, Copts tend to have less of an issue using what you might call “common terminology” for their specific ideas, as you can see in Fr. Tadros’ book, the heading for the relevant section I’ve quoted is “Our Mediatrix”! :eek::D)
 
There’s nothing to read in the link (it is the audio of a hymn), and please also check my edit of the post you’ve quoted. I realized after reading Hesychios’ excellent post that I was not exactly clear in my opening line regarding Orthodox teaching as concerns “mediator”; we accept no mediator other than Christ (again, see Fr. Tadros’ book, p. 67 and following), but the concept by which we see the intercession of the saints (including St. Mary, of course) can lead to some confusion between Orthodox and Catholic ideas, particularly if you have been both (as I have). As evidence, I just did it myself. :o Lord have mercy. (Also, Copts tend to have less of an issue using what you might call “common terminology” for their specific ideas, as you can see in Fr. Tadros’ book, the heading for the relevant section I’ve quoted is “Our Mediatrix”! :eek::D)
Ah, I see now. Thanks. 😉
 
allsortsofannoyingstuff.blogspot.co.uk/

Mary is not a saviour, and neither is she God.!!

She is the surrogate Mother of Christ…

And there is no Biblical necessity to pray to her either. 🙂
Annoyancer, you have been greately misinformed about the Catholic faith. Catholics are the first Christians. The New Testament has been written by, for, and about Catholics. The followers of Christ that were first called Christians in Antioch were all Catholics. That is why your affiliation reference makes no sense. 🤷

You are welcome here if you wish to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches, rather than all the misinformation you have been given. If you just came to insult us in your ignorance, you are not welcome.

Did you know that the Catholic Church does NOT teach that Mary is our saivour, and that she is NOT divine? She is a creature. However, your idea that “she is the surrogate Mother of Christ” is an early heresy that was defeated by the Church in the early centuries of the Church.

You are right, there is no 'biblical necessity" to speak to the Mother of Jesus. One has to wonder why a person who claims to love Jesus would put His Mother on the silent treatment, but that is between you and God.

There is no “biblical necessity” that all that belongs to the Christian faith be found in the Bible, either. You obviously have a lot to learn, so I hopt you can adjust your attitude so that this can happen. 😃
 
I am personally nauseated by the papist Dogma’s that you rc’s keep trotting out, and then calling yourselve’s christian…get a Bible preferably a King james Bible…lol

allsortsofannoyingstuff.blogspot.co.uk/
Well, my I suggest that you refrain from coming to this forum?

You will either elect to comply with the forum rules, or you will be banned. I suggest, if you wish to continue here, you read the rules and follow them. You might also demonstrate Christian charity by apologizing for your offensive posts. So far, we have not been able to recognize you as Christian by your fruits, but you can change that.
 
leaning east…why dont you lean towards becoming a christian ??

allsortsofannoyingstuff.blogspot.co.uk/
Annoyancer, the Eastern Christians come from the Apostolic visits to Antioch and other Eastern cities mentioned in the Book of Acts. It seems that you have much to learn about your faith.

You are welcome to be here, if you want to learn Catholic Answers. If you wish to stay, though, you will need to comply with the forum rules, which include not posting anti-Catholic websites, such as the one above.
 
Yeah, I don’t think it’s worth anyone’s time to bring Mardukm’s viewpoint into the discussion. I say this not out of disrespect for the guy, but because I wasn’t born yesterday and I don’t really want to have to read or participate in the 30 pages of nonsense that will follow. I learned my lesson last time, thank you.
That post to which I linked was illustrative rather than argumentative, though. I was using it as an example alone, not as an argument, so you wouldn’t have to accept his viewpoint in order to see the example.

Anyway, I’ve always found Mardukm’s specificity and thoroughness to be unrivaled on this forum - and on the few posts of his I’ve seen at ByzCath. But anyway, never mind.
No. That is false no matter the magnification. My point is that you can neither smooth over the differences by glossing over them nor recognizing them as real but as two expressions of the same faith when they are not.
I’ll agree to disagree, as these are mere assertions. If specific differences come up in this discussion, I suppose we’ll both perhaps have more to say.
And to those who says that the East lacks the devotion to Mary the way the West has, let me put it this way. Compare how many times she is mentioned in the Roman Mass compared to the Divine Liturgy. I mean, we have a whole section dedicated to her. I don’t see that as lacking devotion.
Agreed.
 
That post to which I linked was illustrative rather than argumentative, though. I was using it as an example alone, not as an argument, so you wouldn’t have to accept his viewpoint in order to see the example.
I see it as an example, but I will not engage it. There is no point in protracted arguments surrounding the ideas of someone who isn’t even posting in this thread.
Anyway, I’ve always found Mardukm’s specificity and thoroughness to be unrivaled on this forum - and on the few posts of his I’ve seen at ByzCath. But anyway, never mind.
And since I have been learning from Orthodox people and attending an Orthodox church, I have come to see how incredibly wrong they are. Tomato, tomahto? 🙂
I’ll agree to disagree, as these are mere assertions. If specific differences come up in this discussion, I suppose we’ll both perhaps have more to say.
And your own opinion is what, by comparison? :rolleyes: Everyone has mere assertions, but you have facts, huh? Gee…why do the rest of us bother, then…
 
And your own opinion is what, by comparison? :rolleyes: Everyone has mere assertions, but you have facts, huh? Gee…why do the rest of us bother, then…
My comments in this thread were mere assertions, too. I honestly in no way intended to contrast your “assertions” with my supposed “facts.” I was attempting to convey my willingness not to debate our assertions in this thread/context, that’s all. Truly.

I get the impression from your posts sometimes that you’re very sensitive and easily frustrated, dzheremi. Please don’t take it the wrong way when I say that you shouldn’t take things so personally. 🙂
 
Gee, Fone Bone, I thought that little guy was smiling at the end of his eye roll…isn’t he? Perhaps I should have chosen a different smiley, as frustration is not what I was going for. 🙂 But so be it. It is hard to convey emotion in text and I will try to keep that in mind in the future. My apologies.
 
And since I have been learning from Orthodox people and attending an Orthodox church, I have come to see how incredibly wrong they are. Tomato, tomahto? 🙂
Masaa’ el-'ishTa*, ya basha. Of what ostensible misconceptions have your Coptic interlocutors cured you?

PS: I must take this opportunity to thank you for linking to this YouTube video somewhere on CAF. Oriental chant is so eerie, so haunting, so beautiful… Can’t get it out of my head.

*Do you or the Egyptians you know actually use this expression?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top