Why are nonCatholic Christians indifferent to Mary?

[Justy90]

I decided on a different approach to the ‘dislike’ thread. I am not using that word. The word I am choosing instead is ‘indifferent’. By the use of this word I mean having no bias, prejudice, or preference; impartial; disinterested. Keeping this in mind now, the question becomes: why are nonCatholic Christians indifferent to Mary, the mother of Jesus?

Indifferent? That seems off track to me. Let me just say that Mary was a very important and honorable person in Biblical history. She is due honor and respect no question and as an Anglican I believe that she is foremost of all the saints in Heaven. Now, do I spend the kind of time and outward emotion upon Mary as many Catholics do? The answer would be no. Why? Because I spend as much time as I can in worship of our Lord and Savior. This in no way is meant to discredit or disgrace anyone. Comparing Mary or any of the saints for that matter to God is like comparing apples to oranges on all levels if you can understand what I am saying here. To spend time contemplating Mary or venerating her takes from my time worshipping my Lord and my God who draws me nearer daily. The two do not mix.

 

[firstmode]

I decided on a different approach to the ‘dislike’ thread. I am not using that word. The word I am choosing instead is ‘indifferent’. By the use of this word I mean having no bias, prejudice, or preference; impartial; disinterested. Keeping this in mind now, the question becomes: why are nonCatholic Christians indifferent to Mary, the mother of Jesus?

I think about the Apostle Peter, the Apostle Paul and the Beloved John way more than I do Mary.

I read their writings and I can relate to Paul’s struggles. I am a male BTW.

I do not think much of Mary because she is a female and the issues she has faced are not really realted much to the situations I experience or see in life.

I love Mary greatly. I also love John the Baptist, Joseph, etc. They are my Christian brothers and sisters.

I think the thing that gets me is the title “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of us all (Christians)”

It seems to me that God does not share in ruling heaven… God the Trinity is all encompassing. God the Son was God before he was birthed by the God Bearer. I do not believe the Holy Spirit to be her “Spouse”, etc.

 

[Hesychios]

Christ instituted a Church that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit grows in understanding, and thus has the capacity to speak with certainty and forcefulness on issues not specifically addressed by the Apostles.

What you seem to be arguing for is development of doctrine a la John Henry Newman. That is just a rationalization for some very bad calls later down the road. Blaming the Holy Spirit for such things is a travesty in itself.

The Christological and Pneumatological beliefs are rooted in the early liturgical prayers of the church. We know the early Christians knew Christ as God because they prayed to Christ as God in the liturgy the Apostles gave them. The later formulations were not development in the sense of coming out of nowhere, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these things were formulated by the Fathers in response to heretical claims.

That includes our veneration of the Theotokos, whose appellation as Queen is not recent, but goes back to luminaries like John Damascene and Ephraim of Syria.

Not recent, but not apostolic. Moreover, it is poetic license. Perhaps it has never happened to you, but when I was married I called my wife “my queen” and “my jewel” and these were heartfelt expressions, but they were not theological or scientific statements, they were poetic license.

So what kind of queen are we talking about here, queen of the Prom? or Empress? There’s your range, take your pick somewhere between the two, but it is your pick, and you load in whatever that means to you, it doesn’t come from the Apostles, Jesus Christ or Saint John of Damascus.

These terms are loaded with our preconceptions. And with extended logic on that you get NEW doctrines. Not things taught by Jesus Christ and handed to us by the Apostles. They are rather rootless, and we need to be conservative in our claims, because some people will take these ideas and run off the board with them. They might even think the The Holy Theotokos is actually perfect, or has power in her own right, or that people couldn’t be saved without recourse to her.

I think that we can have pious opinions about a lot of things that we cannot assert as positive facts. But because they are pious opinions, and not facts, we have to recognize that they are not essential to salvation and there has to be room for more points of view.

If there is an indifference to the Theotokos among some in Orthodoxy, that is modern innovation.

I don’t think anyone here has made the case that there is indifference to the Theotokos among some in Orthodoxy.

 

[peary1]

I think that you would have to demonstrate that assertion.

I had always thought the the next person written about would have been Peter?
You appear to be overreaching here.

You must live in somesort of box. Good grief!

These ideas are probably traceable back as far into the distant past as Scott Hahn, or David Curie or someone like that, I have studied a lot and have never come across these ideas in the early church.

Obviously, you haven’t studied the Davidic Kingdom. And, your study is lacking in theological intent.

In fact, it is a certainty that Saint Mary of Nazareth was alive on earth while the Apostles were teaching and preaching, they did not teach any such thing as ‘Mary as Queen’.

As I said, go read the Book of Kings and educate yourself on the Davidic Kingdom. Even Church theologians made the connection quite early. This is nothing new. These theological concepts are almost two-thousand years old. Start reading the writings of the early Church Fathers on Mary, as a beginning in your understanding.

Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I think that you should prove the positive.

I actually don’t have to ‘prove’ anything to you. The Church does that. There is almost two-thousand years of theological reflection on the Blessed Mother. You should introduce yourself to some of it.

Were you actually interested in an answer to your original question in post #1, or were you looking to start a debate?

What was the question?

Not being a Protestant myself, and having a personal high regard for the Holy Theotokos (singing her praises daily) I tried to be impartial in my answers because you gave the impression that you were interested in listening to some of the reasoning behind what appears to be ‘indifference’.

Accepted.

 

[Hesychios]

You must live in somesort of box. Good grief!

**Obviously, **…

If you want to go on mythmaking, go right ahead. You asserted "What we DO know here in the West, is that devotion to Mary had its initial beginnings with the early Jewish Christians " and “Actually, we know that the early Christians (Jews) particularly in Rome, saw in her the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom as the Queen Mother, the intercessor of the common people”.

Actually, nothing you posted (cribbed from an article) proves your assertion. Even Edward P. Sri did not make this claim.

It is you who are connecting the dots here.

 

[peary1]

If you want to go on mythmaking, go right ahead. You asserted "What we DO know here in the West, is that devotion to Mary had its initial beginnings with the early Jewish Christians ".

Actually, nothing you posted (cribbed from an article) proves your assertion. Even Edward P. Sri did not make this claim.

It is you who are connecting the dots here.

The Blessed Virgin Mary:QUEEN MOTHER OF THE NEW DAVIDIC KINGDOM:
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Mary%20The%20Queen%20Mother%20of%20the%20New%20Davidic%20Kingdom.htm

KINGS OF JUDAH 930 to 587/6 BC:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Kings%20of%20Judah%20with%20Gebirah.htm

THE DAVIDIC COVENANT FULFILLED IN MARY OF NAZARETH:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Davidic%20Covenant%20Fulfilled%20in%20Mary%20of%20Nazareth.html

THE VIRGIN MARY - THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20as%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

THE VIRGIN MARY’S ROLE IN SALVATION HISTORY:
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Virgin%20Mary’s%20Role%20in%20Salvation%20History.htm

THE VIRGIN MARY AND THE VIRGIN EVE CONTRASTED:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20and%20the%20Virgin%20Eve%20Contrasted.htm

MARY: MOTHER OF GOD AND QUEEN MOTHER
ewtn.com/expert/answers/mother.htm

Sri, Edward, & Hahn, Scott, Queen Mother: A Biblical Theology of Mary’s Queenship (Letter & Spirit Project), Emmaus Road Publishing, Steubenville, OH

If you don’t care to actually *read *the book, you may digest a critique of it here:
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/edwardpsri/knowingmary/09.asp

There are numerous writings by the saints and theologians about Mary that have come down to us for the past 1000+ years. The above will give you a basic knowledge of how and why the Church considers Mary important. Whether you agree with that assertion or not, it is biblically based.

 

[firstmode]

So, I - a Lutheran, as well as all Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox - we are all Catholics? Are all Lutherans actually formally registered in congregations legally affiliated with The Catholic Church or just me? Is Jon? Is he also a Catholic and thus this thread isn’t about him, either? What about my Anglican friend who prays the Rosary every morning, is she also officially registered in The Catholic Church and not just her Anglican Church?

Where is your substantiation that non-Catholics are indifferent toward Mary? And YES, that DOES include the 400,000,000 Orthodox, the 70,000,000 Lutherans, the 70,000,000 Anglicans. YOU don’t regard us all as Catholic, and we certainly don’t. And yet your stated position is we are “indifferent” toward Mary. Where is your substantiation for this? I gave MY position on Mary (AS A NON-CATHOLIC), now reveal how that position is “indifferent” toward Her.

With over eighty million members the Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion in the world, after the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Eastern Orthodox Church, is the world’s second largest Christian communion, estimated to number 225 million members.

Catholic Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people

In the early 21st century there were nearly 87 million Lutherans in the world.

.

.

 

[firstmode]

I can see how it would seem like omniscience but when deali g with Mary we have to remember that she is in heaven. She is in an exalted state and a different state than ours. Is it possible that in our exalted state in heaven we can percieve more than we do now? I certaiy don’t rule that out. Mary is not all knowing or everywhere at once. She exists in heaven and in her exalted state it seems apparent that god has given her and others the ability to, in some way, be mindful of our prayers and petitions to her. She doesn’t have the same powers as God, rather any extra perception she may have has been given to her by God.

That sounds like a bunch of mental gymnastics to me…

 

[jericho777]

peary1:
When interpreting scripture we should use scripture to interprete itself. It eliminates outside influences from changing the original intent. We must let scripture tell us what it means not us telling scripture what we want it to mean. Just because some shepard boy saw something 1600 years or so after the fact does not interprete the bible.

In my original post it showed heaven in the book of Revelations with Jesus at the right hand of the Father on their thrones surrounded by the 24 elders on their thrones. The great multitude washed by the blood of the Lamb. But in such a detailed descripiton no mention or recognition of a Queen of Heaven anywhere. If not why?

 

[jericho777]

The Blessed Virgin Mary:QUEEN MOTHER OF THE NEW DAVIDIC KINGDOM:
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Mary%20The%20Queen%20Mother%20of%20the%20New%20Davidic%20Kingdom.htm

KINGS OF JUDAH 930 to 587/6 BC:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Kings%20of%20Judah%20with%20Gebirah.htm

THE DAVIDIC COVENANT FULFILLED IN MARY OF NAZARETH:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Davidic%20Covenant%20Fulfilled%20in%20Mary%20of%20Nazareth.html

THE VIRGIN MARY - THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20as%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

THE VIRGIN MARY’S ROLE IN SALVATION HISTORY:
agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Virgin%20Mary’s%20Role%20in%20Salvation%20History.htm

THE VIRGIN MARY AND THE VIRGIN EVE CONTRASTED:
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20and%20the%20Virgin%20Eve%20Contrasted.htm

MARY: MOTHER OF GOD AND QUEEN MOTHER
ewtn.com/expert/answers/mother.htm

Sri, Edward, & Hahn, Scott, Queen Mother: A Biblical Theology of Mary’s Queenship (Letter & Spirit Project), Emmaus Road Publishing, Steubenville, OH

If you don’t care to actually *read *the book, you may digest a critique of it here:
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/edwardpsri/knowingmary/09.asp

There are numerous writings by the saints and theologians about Mary that have come down to us for the past 1000+ years. The above will give you a basic knowledge of how and why the Church considers Mary important. Whether you agree with that assertion or not, it is biblically based.

You can write as many books as you want but when they contradict the clear meaning of Scripture they are of no use and will lead to destruction.

 

[peary1]

When interpreting scripture we should use scripture to interprete itself. It eliminates outside influences from changing the original intent. We must let scripture tell us what it means not us telling scripture what we want it to mean.

**That’s the attitude which started the protestant rejection of the Catholic Church. The Church has the *final authority ***to interpret Her own Scriptures. If we arrive at an interpretation that is radically altered from the Church’s understanding, then it’s wrong.

In my original post it showed heaven in the book of Revelations with Jesus at the right hand of the Father on their thrones surrounded by the 24 elders on their thrones. The great multitude washed by the blood of the Lamb. But in such a detailed descripiton no mention or recognition of a Queen of Heaven anywhere. If not why?

That’s because you hold to the notion of sola scriptura. Go back into my previous posts where is listed several biblical studies concerning Mary the mother of Jesus and how the Church arrived at the insights that She did. If you still cannot make the connection between the Davidic Kingdom of the Old Testament, and Jesus and Mary in the New Testament, then there is nothing else that can be done except that, hopefully, the Holy Spirit will enlighten your mind and soul.

 

[dvdjs]

What you seem to be arguing for is development of doctrine a la John Henry Newman. That is just a rationalization for some very bad calls later down the road. Blaming the Holy Spirit for such things is a travesty in itself.

By the same token, you seem to be arguing for a reformed Christianity that has no confidence in the working of the Holy Spirit within the Church. The late reformers, and the Mormons have done this and where has that led them? The Eastern Church is clear on these matters, what is the use of disputing them? Is Orthodoxy in America so affected by the Protestant influx that it needs to revise its historical veneration of the Theotokos? Will Orthodoxy remain orthodox in America?

Bad calls? In whose private judgment?

The Christological and Pneumatological beliefs are rooted in the early liturgical prayers of the church. We know the early Christians knew Christ as God because they prayed to Christ as God in the liturgy the Apostles gave them. The later formulations were not development in the sense of coming out of nowhere, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these things were formulated by the Fathers in response to heretical claims.

Objectively, how does this situation compare with the development of liturgical practice as pertains to Mariology? What, church teaching on Mary, comes out of nowhere?

Not recent, but not apostolic.

As suggested above, so what? I think that this setting up one’s own criteria for belief is dangerous territory.

Moreover, it is poetic license. Perhaps it has never happened to you, but when I was married I called my wife “my queen” and “my jewel” and these were heartfelt expressions, but they were not theological or scientific statements, they were poetic license.

So what kind of queen are we talking about here, queen of the Prom? or Empress? There’s your range, take your pick somewhere between the two, but it is your pick, and you load in whatever that means to you, it doesn’t come from the Apostles, Jesus Christ or Saint John of Damascus.

Fine this is an arguable point: what was the meaning of Ephrem of Syria, or John Damascence. At least then we are seeking to understand what the church and its recognized saints are teaching us, rather than opting to downplay or dismiss these teachings in favor of an innovative, sola Apostle criterion of belief.

These terms are loaded with our preconceptions. And with extended logic on that you get NEW doctrines. Not things taught by Jesus Christ and handed to us by the Apostles. They are rather rootless, and we need to be conservative in our claims, because some people will take these ideas and run off the board with them. They might even think the The Holy Theotokos is actually perfect, or has power in her own right, or that people couldn’t be saved without recourse to her.

I agree with this point, in principle. But conservative to me means consistent with the teaching and practice of the church. I think that you are inserting your own, novel sense of conservatism. As to the perfection of the Theotokos, ISTM that the worst deviation is the ill-informed, polemical response to the Catholic understanding of the Immaculate conception, that the Theotokos by her own will avoided all sin. And when we say, “Most Holy Theotokos, save us” we are not saying, and have never said: save us by “power in [your] own right”. The answer to these objections is adherence to the teaching and practice of the Church, not an innovative downplaying of the role of Mary, ordained by God, in salvation history.

I think that we can have pious opinions about a lot of things that we cannot assert as positive facts. But because they are pious opinions, and not facts, we have to recognize that they are not essential to salvation and there has to be room for more points of view.

Only insofar as the points of view do not contradict the teaching and practice of the Church. Otherwise we degenerate into the morass of private judgment .

I don’t think anyone here has made the case that there is indifference to the Theotokos among some in Orthodoxy.

I think that someone has.

 

[jericho777]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jericho777
When interpreting scripture we should use scripture to interprete itself. It eliminates outside influences from changing the original intent. We must let scripture tell us what it means not us telling scripture what we want it to mean.

That’s the attitude which started the protestant rejection of the Catholic Church. The Church has the final authority to interpret Her own Scriptures. If we arrive at an interpretation that is radically altered from the Church’s understanding, then it’s wrong.

In my original post it showed heaven in the book of Revelations with Jesus at the right hand of the Father on their thrones surrounded by the 24 elders on their thrones. The great multitude washed by the blood of the Lamb. But in such a detailed descripiton no mention or recognition of a Queen of Heaven anywhere. If not why?

That’s because you hold to the notion of sola scriptura. Go back into my previous posts where is listed several biblical studies concerning Mary the mother of Jesus and how the Church arrived at the insights that She did. If you still cannot make the connection between the Davidic Kingdom of the Old Testament, and Jesus and Mary in the New Testament, then there is nothing else that can be done except that, hopefully, the Holy Spirit will enlighten your mind and soul.

Peary1 I’m speachless if scripture clearly states something then aren’t we are obligated to do it?. Are you saying the Church has the power to change, alter or nullify the original meaning of scripture? Is it not in OUR best interest to accurately know what G-d really wants for us?

Under your thought are we supposed to believe a lie and not scripture? How can we ever really know what scripture means if it doesn’t really mean what it says? That’s why if we let scripture say what it says then we can’t go wrong. The Apostles never once went against the original intent of scripture never or had any private interperations. G-d takes His word very seriously and remember it was written in stone. Ps 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word standeth firm in heaven.

I am bound by the word of G-d not by the word of man.

PS I’m new at this posting stuff and can’t make it look as good as yours.

 

[peary1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jericho777
When interpreting scripture we should use scripture to interprete itself. It eliminates outside influences from changing the original intent. We must let scripture tell us what it means not us telling scripture what we want it to mean.

**That’s the attitude which started the protestant rejection of the Catholic Church. The Church has the final authority to interpret Her own Scriptures. If we arrive at an interpretation that is radically altered from the Church’s understanding, then it’s wrong. **

In my original post it showed heaven in the book of Revelations with Jesus at the right hand of the Father on their thrones surrounded by the 24 elders on their thrones. The great multitude washed by the blood of the Lamb. But in such a detailed descripiton no mention or recognition of a Queen of Heaven anywhere. If not why?

**Again, *go back into my previous posts where is listed several biblical studies concerning Mary the mother of Jesus and how the Church arrived at the insights that She did. ***If you still cannot make the connection between the Davidic Kingdom of the Old Testament, and Jesus and Mary in the New Testament, then there is nothing else that can be done except that, hopefully, the Holy Spirit will enlighten your mind and soul.

Peary1 I’m speachless if scripture clearly states something then aren’t we are obligated to do it?. Are you saying the Church has the power to change, alter or nullify the original meaning of scripture?

Speechless? Really, now. What is called the Catholic Church is the Church instituted by Christ for the salvation of humankind. Period. The Church has EVERY RIGHT TO INTERPRET HER OWN SCRIPTURES. She* has *that authority, given to Her by Christ. Interpretation is not changing, altering or nullifying Scripture. It is clarifying Scripture and its intent. She gave us the Scriptures. Not only that, the Church protected the Word of God.

Is it not in OUR best interest to accurately know what G-d really wants for us?

Our best interest to accurately know what God really wants for us is to listen to what the Church tells us. You cannot divorce the Church from Her Scriptures anymore than you can divorce Scriptures from the Church. It doesn’t work that way!

Under your thought are we supposed to believe a lie and not scripture? How can we ever really know what scripture means if it doesn’t really mean what it says? That’s why if we let scripture say what it says then we can’t go wrong.

That is why the Church encourages us both to read Scripture and apply Scripture to our daily lives. However, if our personal interpretation is radically different from the teachings of the Church, then our interpretation is wrong. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

The Apostles never once went against the original intent of scripture never or had any private interperations.

Saint Paul didn’t have a private revelation? OH PLEASE! Go read ACTS!

I am bound by the word of G-d not by the word of man.

So am I. I’m just thankful that I have the Christ’s Church to steer me in the right direction.

PS I’m new at this posting stuff and can’t make it look as good as yours.

No, you can’t.

 

[jericho777]

peary1 you said we should not let the bible interprate scripture wiih scripture because it could contradict the church. So does that mean the church has the authority to over ride the clear meaning of scripture? Or the bible doesen’t really mean what it says?

I read a little of the book THE VIRGIN MARY’S ROLE IN SALVATION HISTORY and was concerned because it said “Mary’s obedience to God resulted in the offer of the gift of salvation to the entire human race. The result was eternal life” I thought that is what Christ did for us He is the ONLY one that can do this. and " Mary is the “mother of all who truly live” when, at the cross, Jesus gave His mother to the Church as the Mother of all who come to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord and therefore receive the gift of eternal life." I don’t see that in the bible either. It makes it sound like Mary is necessary for salvation.

 

[peary]

peary1 you said we should not let the bible interprate scripture wiih scripture because it could contradict the church.

How can Scripture interpret itself? That is just insane. You need a person to interpret anything, even a language. Again, the Church is the sole authority on interpreting Scripture and its authentic meaning. Why? Because Scripture comes from the Church, NOT VICE VERSA.

So does that mean the church has the authority to over ride the clear meaning of scripture?

Do you ever read what I post? I SAID that the Church CLARIFIES what is in Scripture. And the Scriptures come from the Church. The Church protects the Scriptures and thus protects authentic Faith which comes down to us from the Apostles.

Or the bible doesen’t really mean what it says?

Of course, the Bible says what it means, but there are different ways to understand it. First, you understand it as literature; second, you understand it as history; third, you understand it as the inspired Word of God, and within it we have the complete understanding of salvation as God wants us to have.

I read a little of the book THE VIRGIN MARY’S ROLE IN SALVATION HISTORY and was concerned because it said “Mary’s obedience to God resulted in the offer of the gift of salvation to the entire human race. The result was eternal life” I thought that is what Christ did for us He is the ONLY one that can do this.

**By Mary’s humility and saying “Yes” to God, through her obedience God offered to US the gift of salvation for the entire human race. The book does not say that she is a god! God entered the world *through a woman ***and humbled HIMSELF *as *a human being in the name of Jesus so that we could know the Truth. Eve said no; Mary said yes. Because of Eve’s decision, we had death; because of Mary’s decision, we have life in Christ. Can’t you make this distinction??

and " Mary is the “mother of all who truly live” when, at the cross, Jesus gave His mother to the Church as the Mother of all who come to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord and therefore receive the gift of eternal life." I don’t see that in the bible either. It makes it sound like Mary is necessary for salvation.

**Do you see the word ‘Incarnation’ in the Bible?
Do you see the world ‘Trinity’ in the Bible?
Why not?
Because these words are not in the Bible, does that mean you do not believe what they mean?

Wasn’t John the faithful disciple? Wasn’t he the one Jesus loved the most out of them all? The Bible says THAT. John has always been an archtype of the faithful disciple. And, at the Cross, Jesus gave his mother to him**. Are you serious to believe that early Christians couldn’t figure this out? As faithful disciples, she is our spiritual mother. She is the Mother of All Christians. That has been the Church’s understanding for two-thousand years.

And in her prayer to God in the Magnificat (Luke) does she say “All generations shall be indifferent to me” or does she say “All generations shall call me blessed”? Indifference and blessedness are two different things, believe me. How can you reconcile the two in your own mind??

Again, Eve saying ‘no’ to God resulted in sin and death. Mary saying ‘yes’ to God resulted in eternal life for us in Christ. I can’t explain it any easier than that.

The Church does not teach that Mary is necessary for salvation. Neither does the Bible, so I will agree with you there.

 

[jericho777]

peary1 or peary I think there are two of you, I do read what you post very seriously. Just my opinion but I see a BIG stretch with what you are telling me and what the bible plainly teaches. When I put them side by side I just shake my head it’s like telling me 1+1= 6 or something like that. I do not see any kind of connection with what the bible teaches and Church doctrine. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for your time.

PS you still have nice looking posts

 

[Hesychios]

By the same token, you seem to be arguing for a reformed Christianity that has no confidence in the working of the Holy Spirit within the Church.

I have every confidence in the Holy Spirit working in the church. I do not see using the Holy Spirit as an excuse to fabricate new theology.

I am not arguing for a Reformed Christianity of any sort. I am an Orthodox Catholic for a reason.

The Eastern Church is clear on these matters, what is the use of disputing them? Is Orthodoxy in America so affected by the Protestant influx that it needs to revise its historical veneration of the Theotokos? Will Orthodoxy remain orthodox in America?

Even your church agrees that the Age of Revelation is closed.

I have neither argued for a revision of Orthodoxy’s veneration of the Theotokos, nor have I ever believed that it is necessary. Read my first post once again, if you didn’t get it the first time.

I am simply pointing out the facts:

• Marian devotion is not Apostolic,
• Most of what we know about the Holy Theotokos is rooted in apocryphal literature that the church did not canonize

I know you to be a very bright man, if you disagree with these two points please speak out.

Because of the two points above, I further feel:

• no one can be blamed for being skeptical, it is the healthy response of an intelligent mind
• It should not matter if people are skeptical about certain beliefs around the Theotokos if they already have a correct understanding of Jesus Christ incarnate, and the Holy Trinity.

Bad calls? In whose private judgment?

Objections to the Filioque and the Papal dogmas are not simply my private judgment.

Have you more dogmas in the pipeline for us to examine?

The Holy Spirit cannot be used an an excuse to imagine just any idea and declare it New Light, nor as an excuse to use philosophy and logic to extrapolate into new ideas about the divine, nor to delve into scripture and pull out disconnected verse to craft new beliefs that contradict tradition.

Nor to rewrite history.

We know Christ’s saving message, we have the Gospels and the sacraments.

As suggested above, so what? I think that this setting up one’s own criteria for belief is dangerous territory.

We have people here actually believing that "we know that the early Christians (Jews) particularly in Rome, saw in her the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom as the Queen Mother".

Do you find this historically plausible?

Perhaps there are Catholics today who see her that way after reading Scott Hahn, but not in the first or second centuries anywhere.

Mythologizing on Saint Mary Theotokos goes on and on with wild abandon in some Catholic circles. But that seems to be an untouchable phenomenon, any fable someone wants to make, any historical connection one cares to fake about the Theotokos is acceptable in this mindset. Then if enough people start believing this stuff, someone will claim the “Holy Spirit” moved the church to believe this, and they will petition the Pope for another dogma.

Not that this satisfies the Vincentian Canon. But heck … who was that Vince guy again?

The answer to these objections is adherence to the teaching and practice of the Church, not an innovative downplaying of the role of Mary, ordained by God, in salvation history.

Only insofar as the points of view do not contradict the teaching and practice of the Church. Otherwise we degenerate into the morass of private judgment .

I agree with these points.

NO more, NO less.

With eyes wide open.

 

[dvdjs]

Heschyios, I am skipping the argumentative stuff in your response to focus on the meat of my concerns.

I am simply pointing out the facts:

• Marian devotion is not Apostolic,
• Most of what we know about the Holy Theotokos is rooted in apocryphal literature that the church did not canonize

Because of the two points above, I further feel:

• no one can be blamed for being skeptical, it is the healthy response of an intelligent mind
• It should not matter if people are skeptical about certain beliefs around the Theotokos if they already have a correct understanding of Jesus Christ incarnate, and the Holy Trinity.

As to the facts: I assume that by “canonize” you mean “include in the canon of scripture”. So let me ask what term would you use for material in the menaion, the synaxarion, and all of the material that is, by rule, included in liturgies of the church? Has not the church “canonized” this material? Are you inviting skepticism of the churches lex orandi? This is the message that I get, and I do not think it to be at consistent with an authentic Orthodox mentality, which IMO, reflexively rejects any kind of cafeteria-style belief.

More importantly, I don’t think that skepticism about these matters is the “healthy response of an intelligent mind”. I think it is prelest. It is an error, and in fact, it is the error of our age. And I see your posts, notwithstanding your sincerely good intentions about which I harbor no doubts, as a promoting this error.

You may feel that there is no danger in this skepticism, if the fundamentals are in place. I disagree. First, even among the well-formed, skepticism could quite possibly become an impious habit that undoes well-grounded formation. Second, your are posting to the world-wide web, not just to the well-formed. Have you no concern that your invitation to skepticism is read by and influences those who are not well-grounded or who do not have healthy, intelligent minds?

I think that this problem is especially critical in our time and in the US. We are a culture steeped in an uncritical sense of self-esteem - unchecked by super-ego, let alone a sense of humility and compunction. We are oblivious from the outset of our discussions, of the most obvious and salient fact: many others - more schooled, practiced, and holy - have come to different conclusions on matters under discussion. People seem happy to do something they call “research” and then self-actualize. People use the word “convert” in the most paradoxical way: not metanoia, rather locating a church that suits their current beliefs. That is not conversion, it is shopping and hopping. Only in our consumer culture.

Curiously, you seem to eschew critical thinking in the deepening of doctrinal understanding (notwithstanding the history of first millenium church) and the development of what might be called pious mythos. But you invite it for skepticism. My view is precisely the opposite. I see little risk at all in too much belief, too much veneration, or too much love, as compared to the risks of skepticism.

Pasteur was a bright man. He said: “The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant woman.” I am with him, and look for the faith of myrrh-bearing women. If I have feelings of skepticism, I seek deliverance from them.

And in the meantime, I keep it to myself to avoid what would probably get me a well-deserved millstone hung about my neck.

With eyes wide open

.
Better closed in prayer.

 

[Kantaram88]

Good answer! I think of Mary, but the only things I know about her for certain are what the bible tells us; and to be honest, the bible does not give a lot of information on Mary…perhaps because salvation is through Christ, not Mary. Mary was obedient to God, and He accomplished His purposes through her because she obeyed God. She serves as a model of total obedience to God.

Dear Priscilla,

For one, its good to know that you believe what the Holy Bible tells about Mother Mary, but than which Holy Bible? What was the Holy Bible like when it was originally conceived? How many books did it have? Why do Catholics use 73 books and non Catholics use 66? What if many of the things discussed here were removed from the book?

Mother Mary was just not obedient to God, She was more than that. In OT 2 Samuel, we are told of how when Uzzah touched the ark of the covenent, he died? Why was God angry on him? God knew that he was just preventing the ark from falling, yet he was punished. Why was the Ark so important for God that He had Uzzah dead?

Mother Mary is the Ark of the Covenant of NT and many are just touching her.

God Bless