C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Are you advocating here a principal that “more is better”? If so, I find this to be a rather unorthodox approach for an “Orthodox sort of guy”. Didn’t anyone tell you that you guys are suppose to be big on Mary? Are you a new convert to Orthodoxy?Define “huge on Mariology”. This is the sum total of all St. Irenaeus ever wrote on Mariology:
I suppose a picture or icon is worth a thousand words but I thought Saint Irenaeus’ concise, though admittedly minimalist and less than iconic prose to be quite a good thumbnail portrait. Are you sure you are not out of school with your patriarchs brother? After all they had a royal hissy fit at us Latin Catholics just for adding the single sentence (Filioque clause) to the Creed. If that excess verbosity was offensive to the Orthodox preference for brevity I can’t imagine why you would complain about a “less is more” approach to Maryology. Is it evidence or not?
But now you have me wondering here if perhaps Franciscan Friar William of Ockham stole his idea ofOccam’s Razor from Irenaeus …
I never claimed that these ECF’s “had it all” with respect to Marian dogma formation. I only claimed that there were initial works in place as a foundation for further discernment from the existing deposit of faith. Does the Holy Spirit not get to do His work in The Church according to His own schedule? Is this stated anywhere in scripture? For that matter without going to the Catholic Catechism can you show from scripture where it tells us that all public revelation ends with the apostles or are you relying on the Latin Church for this teaching?St. Ambrose does indeed proclaim Mary as the ideal of virginity whom all other women choosing the life of virginity should emulate, but he preaches none of the “exclusively Catholic” Marian dogmas – the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or this Mediatrix business. The same applies to St. Augustine, although he is often cited wrongly as supporting the Immaculate Conception when he affirms Mary’s personal sinlessness, but this cannot be the case because he elsewhere wrote, “Christ’s flesh was not sinful, because it was not born of Mary by ordinary generation; but because death is the effect of sin, this flesh, in being mortal, had the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Reply to Faustus the Manichean 14:5)
I have not fully exhausted the saints works myself. But you have not heard of the Mother of God/Theotokos defenses of St. Cyrl? He was the principal advocate of the title “Theotokos” during the Council of Ephesus (431).Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’ve found nothing in St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s writings on Mariology. And you’re welcome to peruse my thread “Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception” if you want evidence that St. Leo believed no such thing about Mary.
–Mike
His writings include the homily given in Ephesus and several other sermons. In several writings, Cyril focuses on the love of Jesus to his mother.** On the Cross, he overcomes his pain and thinks of his mother. At the wedding in Cana, he bows to her wishes. The overwhelming merit of Cyril of Alexandria is the cementation of the centre of dogmatic mariology for all times. Cyril is credited with creating a basis for all other mariological developments through his teaching of the blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God.**
More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria#Mariology
James