Pope opposed veneration of Mary?

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology

In the “Development and impact of Mariology” section, it says the following:

“In the East, devotion to Mary blossomed in the sixth century under official patronage and imperial promotion at the Court of Constantinople.[21] The popularity of Mary as an individual object of devotion, however, only began in the fifth century with the appearance of apocryphal versions of her life, interest in her relics, and the first churches dedicated to her name, for example, S. Maria Maggiore in Rome.[22] A sign that the process was slower in Rome is provided by the incident during the visit of Pope Agapetus to Constantinople in 536, when he was upbraided for opposing the veneration of the theotokos and refusing to allow her icons to be displayed in Roman churches.[23]”

So first of all… devotion to Mary only started in the fifth century, properly? Isn’t that a bit late?

And second of all, Pope Agapetus opposed the veneration of the theotokos? Is this true? The source refers to a book, so I’m not sure if this is actually true or not.

And so if it is true, how do we explain this, that a Pope as late as the sixth century opposed the veneration of Mary?

 

[1ke]

It’s Wikipedia.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

It’s Wikipedia.

Haha, I’m well aware of that, but it has also got a reference so I thought I’d ask on here whether it’s true or not.

 

[MattofTexas]

I have no idea about this incident, however…

One magnificent demonstration of the Marian cult is the prayer “Sub tuum praesidium” (We fly to thy patronage) that dates back up to the third to fourth century, and that illustrates the intercession of Mary.

earlychristians.org/docs_interest/Mary.html

 

[1ke]

Haha, I’m well aware of that, but it has also got a reference so I thought I’d ask on here whether it’s true or not.

Oh yes, let me run get my copy of Monophysite Church Decoration off the shelf.

On the whole, I don’t think the Wiki article is saying what you interpret it to say.

 

[johnnyc176]

Oh yes, let me run get my copy of Monophysite Church Decoration off the shelf.

 

[MarcoPolo]

There does not seem to be any reference I could find for such a claim other than that single footnote from Wikipedia from the 1977 book. I have found a number of pages referring to Pope Agapetus having funded his visit to Constantinople by selling various sacred vessels from the Church. If those included Marian icons, is it possible that there was the impression that he was trying to “get rid of them”? I don’t know.

Additionally, a large, if not THE, purpose for the Pope’s visit to Constantinople was to quell the monophysite heresy (that Jesus’ divine nature obliterated and absorbed his human nature like a sugar cube in liquid). If the Pope insisted they remove all their iconography, it could also have been misinterpreted if any of those icons included Marian icons. I especially say this because the name of the book referenced in the Wikipedia footnote is “Monophysite church decoration”. So did the Pope have them take down decorations because they were Marian, or because they were “Monophysite-ish”? Another wiki page referencing the same book and same page says Pope Agapetus was “accused” of being against Marian veneration and artwork. The articles don’t tell us who did the accusing, on what basis, and the book is long out of print.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Explain what? That the Holy Spirit reveals things over time?

 

[godisgood77]

To the OP… yes, Marian devotion is scarcely seen in the first 500 years in the Church. The apocryphal writings referenced in the wiki article have very little if any historical significance.

I highly recommend the book the Assumption of Mary by Kilian Healy where he provides the best historical review of Marian devotion that I’ve seen.

 

[1ke]

There does not seem to be any reference I could find for such a claim other than that single footnote from Wikipedia from the 1977 book. I have found a number of pages referring to Pope Agapetus having funded his visit to Constantinople by selling various sacred vessels from the Church. If those included Marian icons, is it possible that there was the impression that he was trying to “get rid of them”? I don’t know.

Additionally, a large, if not THE, purpose for the Pope’s visit to Constantinople was to quell the monophysite heresy (that Jesus’ divine nature obliterated and absorbed his human nature like a sugar cube in liquid). If the Pope insisted they remove all their iconography, it could also have been misinterpreted if any of those icons included Marian icons. I especially say this because the name of the book referenced in the Wikipedia footnote is “Monophysite church decoration”. So did the Pope have them take down decorations because they were Marian, or because they were “Monophysite-ish”? Another wiki page referencing the same book and same page says Pope Agapetus was “accused” of being against Marian veneration and artwork. The articles don’t tell us who did the accusing, on what basis, and the book is long out of print.

And, the book would be the author’s opinion, not actual Church teaching. There is no Church teaching or document issued by this pope or any other against Marian devotion, icons, statues, etc.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

MarcoPolo:

I especially say this because the name of the book referenced in the Wikipedia footnote is “Monophysite church decoration”.

I couldn’t find this book either on Amazon or on ABE for out of print books. Maybe it was just an article in some magazine?

 

[1ke]

I couldn’t find this book either on Amazon or on ABE for out of print books. Maybe it was just an article in some magazine?

It appears the name of the book is Iconoclasm and has editors listed rather than authors. So, the Monophysite reference is to a chapter in the book.

 

[TimothyH]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology

In the “Development and impact of Mariology” section, it says the following:

“In the East, devotion to Mary blossomed in the sixth century under official patronage and imperial promotion at the Court of Constantinople.[21] The popularity of Mary as an individual object of devotion, however, only began in the fifth century with the appearance of apocryphal versions of her life, interest in her relics, and the first churches dedicated to her name, for example, S. Maria Maggiore in Rome.[22] A sign that the process was slower in Rome is provided by the incident during the visit of Pope Agapetus to Constantinople in 536, when he was upbraided for opposing the veneration of the theotokos and refusing to allow her icons to be displayed in Roman churches.[23]”

So first of all… devotion to Mary only started in the fifth century, properly? Isn’t that a bit late?

And second of all, Pope Agapetus opposed the veneration of the theotokos? Is this true? The source refers to a book, so I’m not sure if this is actually true or not.

And so if it is true, how do we explain this, that a Pope as late as the sixth century opposed the veneration of Mary?

Pope Agapetus I is a saint.

There was much political intruge at the time, with a war and threatened conquest of Italy, patriarchs in the eastern Church who were political appointees of the emperor, nestorian heresy, etc.

St. Agapetus went to Constantinople at the urging of several monastery Abbots to restore order. There he recieved a profession of faith from Emperor Justinian, convinced him not to attempt to conquer Italy, and excommunicated a man named Anthimus for his refusal to accept a valid Church council.

My point is that without the big picture, one sentance can be misleading. There was much intrugue and while St. Agapetus was accused of many things, including being a heretic by some of those with whom he interacted on his journey, he is, at the end of the day a saint in the Roman Catholic Church, some of the Oriental Churches as well as possibly the Byzantine Church.

Wikipedia is often accurate, often not, but is almost always not complete. As we say in the computer industry, “just enough information to make someone dangerous.”

-Tim-

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Oh yes, let me run get my copy of Monophysite Church Decoration off the shelf.

On the whole, I don’t think the Wiki article is saying what you interpret it to say.

You guys are meant to be clever clogs. I was expecting some brilliant answer that I usually get.

Now I understand that the people of the Church reached a fuller understanding of the truth throughout time, I guess. But isn’t it still a bit odd that Marian devotions only cropped up in the fifth century? And even the sub tuum presidium from the third century… isn’t it all a bit late?

Now I’m pretty sure there isn’t any actual historical evidence, but I’m curious as to what all of your opinions are as to whether the first-century Christians actually practised praying to the saints for intercession and venerating them? Or was it something that really did only appear in the third century at the earliest?

 

[1ke]

You guys are meant to be clever clogs. I was expecting some brilliant answer that I usually get.

Now I understand that the people of the Church reached a fuller understanding of the truth throughout time, I guess. But isn’t it still a bit odd that Marian devotions only cropped up in the fifth century? And even the sub tuum presidium from the third century… isn’t it all a bit late?

Now I’m pretty sure there isn’t any actual historical evidence, but I’m curious as to what all of your opinions are as to whether the first-century Christians actually practised praying to the saints for intercession and venerating them? Or was it something that really did only appear in the third century at the earliest?

Yes, intercession petitions are documented in catacomb inscriptions of the first century. You can go there and see them youself.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Yes, intercession petitions are documented in catacomb inscriptions of the first century. You can go there and see them youself.

Seriously? Wow. Didn’t know that! It’s Google time!

EDIT: Hmm, are you sure it’s first century?

EDIT EDIT: Could you give me a link? I can’t find any first-century catacomb inscriptions.

 

[1ke]

Seriously? Wow. Didn’t know that! It’s Google time!

EDIT: Hmm, are you sure it’s first century?

EDIT EDIT: Could you give me a link? I can’t find any first-century catacomb inscriptions.

I said you could go there and see them yourself. I have.

Not everything is a link.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

I said you could go there and see them yourself. I have.

Not everything is a link.

Going there and seeing them won’t tell me it’s first century.

So you don’t have any other sources?

EDIT: Was it in Rome that you saw these?

 

[1ke]

Going there and seeing them won’t tell me it’s first century.

So you don’t have any other sources?

EDIT: Was it in Rome that you saw these?

Centuries should be plural, as the catacombs were in use in the first three centuries extensively.

Yes, I have been to Rome and the catacombs.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Centuries should be plural, as the catacombs were in use in the first three centuries extensively.

Yes, I have been to Rome and the catacombs.

Ah, so you don’t actually know that it is first century? It could be third-century?