Posted on 01/08/2006 5:27:18 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
A Protestant preacher recently said that devotion to the Mother of God is the cause of all bad in the world, since she was not a virgin after she gave birth to Christ and was just another woman. This really has upset me. Why do we worship the Virgin Mary and how do we answer those who say that she was nothing but another woman? What significance does she have for us Orthodox? (B.W., TX)
One cannot react to every opinion and idea about Christianity. At some point, common sense must prevail. In the first place, the idea that devotion to the Theotokos, or Bearer of God, is the cause of the world’s ills is a ridiculous proposition. One must look at such an idea with the same passivity that we show towards so-called scholarly attempt to prove that Christian devotion to the Virgin Mary derives from the pagan cult of the earth goddess. It does not deserve a response. Secondly, while non-Orthodox Christian denominations may differ with regard to their assessment of the significance of the Mother of God, this does not explain the views of those who would like to believe—an incredible, if not demonic thing—that a woman chosen by the God of the universe to bear His Incarnate Son would simply return, after this miraculous event, to the world of the flesh. If St. Paul praises the chaste life, if Christians are called to become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, and if, at least in the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches, monks and nuns are called to uphold the standard of virginity and purity,* how could any rational person suggest that the woman called to bear the Son of God would be exempt from such a pious commitment?
We will not, here, comment on the mistranslation and misuse of Scripture by which some heterodox try to claim that the Virgin Mary was a virgin only "up to the time" of the Virgin Birth and not after, or by which they rather naïvely understand the children of St. Joseph (the Virgin Mary’s step-children) and their cousins to be the literal "brothers and sisters" of Christ. The Fathers of the Church have written at length on these matters. Suffice it to say that ancient Christian tradition supported the idea that the Mother of God was ever-virgin, just as Church Fathers and Councils condemned heretics in the early Church who, like their counterparts today, questioned the spiritual eminence of the Theotokos.
As for the very eminence of the Mother of God, let us turn to Scripture. Going to the house of Zacharias, the Virgin Mary greeted his wife, Elizabeth. "Filled with the Holy Spirit," St. Elizabeth cried out, "Blessed art thou among women..." (St. Luke 1: 40-42). In response, the Theotokos observes that "...henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." It would, again, suggest a psychological or spiritual problem of no small dimensions for anyone to believe that, after these statements, the Virgin Mary would simply return to the life of the flesh and set aside her spiritual role in the salvation brought to mankind by Jesus Christ.
Finally, we Orthodox do not "worship" the Virgin Mary. We "venerate" her and show her great honor. Nor have we ever, like the Latins, developed the idea that the Theotokos was born without sin (the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception) or that she is a co-redemptor with Christ (the cult of the Redemtrix in the Latin Church). The consensus of the Church Fathers rejects such ideas, and the Orthodox Church adheres to that consensus. However, we do believe that the Virgin Mary is an image, as St. Maximos the Confessor says, of the Christian goal of becoming Christ-like, of theosis. Just as the Theotokos gave birth to Christ in a bodily way, so we must, St. Maximos tells us, give birth to Christ in an unbodily or spiritual way. In so doing, we imitate her practical spiritual life, including the purity and humility by which she formed her free will into perfect obedience to the Will of God. Of this practical image of the Virgin Mary, one of our readers, Archdeacon Basil Kuretich, D.D., has written some words that bear repeating here. They give us a clear picture of the importance of the model which she presents for every Orthodox believer:
"We...are aware of the part played by Divine Grace in the Virgin Mary’s life and are aware of the perfection of her virtue. However, we cannot lose sight of the importance of free will in the development and expression of her rich personality. After the Annunication, she kept the secret of God’s plan for her; she faced misunderstanding and accusation from others. She quickly visited her cousin, Elizabeth, not thinking of her own needs, but only the need of Elizabeth to share her joy. She endured the journey to Bethlehem; she humbly prepared for the birth of her Child and obediently accepted the command to flee into Egypt. The Virgin Mary, aided by Divine Grace, carried out these actions in a real world—with real effort and sacrifice. Thus she is for us a model of many virtues."
*Although they may be familiar with monasticism in the Latin Church, most Americans do not know that monastic brotherhoods and sisterhoods survived in the Lutheran and Reformed movements, despite the generally polemical attitude towards the monastic estate that marked the Protestant Reformation. Over the years they have decreased in number or have been absorbed into Roman Catholicism, as is the case in Sweden, where most of the Lutheran monastic houses have succumbed to the widespread proselytizing of German Jesuit missionaries in that country.
From the "Question and Answer" section of Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IX, No. 4, pp. 8-9. Originally titled "The Theotokos." For more on the evolution of the term Theotokos and its central significance for upholding Christianity, see the Documents of the Third Œcumenical Synod. It is worth pointing out that though many Protestants realize this Synod was about the condemnation of Nestorius's teaching, few know that the arguments centered around the use of the term Theotokos, or "Mother of God," for the Blessed Virgin Mary. This was so much the case that Bishop Kallistos (Ware) has written: "The same primacy that the word homoousion occupies in the doctrine of the Trinity, the word Theotokos holds in the doctrine of the Incarnation." (The Orthodox Church, p. 25) So why do Protestants not use the term Theotokos, let alone even honor the Virgin Mary? In not doing so, they in practice deny the Incarnation and fall under the anathemas of the Third Œcumenical Synod. Food for thought.
Pace youself, Tex.
Perhaps :)
I'm quite skeptical of this statement. I've known a lot of Protestant ministers, including several rather violently anti-Catholic ones. None would say that her veneration is the cause of all bad in the world.
Tex Confederate on 1/5/06 1. RC & EO DO NOT "WORSHIP" DEAD PEOPLE....
Says it all right there.
" 3"You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:3-6)
Fr. Whiteford didn't write that. That was the question asked of him. The questioner was in error.
The Orthodox Eastern church has celebrated the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and has proclaimed her ever-virgin. They also celebrate her bodily assumption to heaven. These practices go way back before 800AD.
But, their theologians also like to make fine points of distinction about what each of these doctrines mean, and how they differ from the Catholics. However, and this is the real point, the Eastern faithful believe and practise exactly the same as Catholic faithful. The Easterns honor her just as much, and in fact, placed side to side nowadays, I would suggest that Orthodox liturgical statements, observances and prayers to and about Mary are far more Marian than your average "modernised" Catholic.
Yep. Can I share this too before I head out:
"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
(Martin Luther in his sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39)
For those of us unable to read more than a sentence an hour, let me use this sentence to assure you that in a fw hours you will see that while the questioner says "we worshp the Virgin Mary," the answerer says (correctly) that we don't worship her -- and if you come back in an hour, when you're ready to read the next sentence, maybe you can explain what the purpose or benefit is of accusing somebody of something untrue and insisting in the face of their denial that you are right.
For those of you able to read at a normal speed, how stupid is this? We repeatedly make the distinction between doulia and latria and certain of the more aggressive and less thoughtful of our opponents disregard us. It's like Democrats accusing the Republicans of anti-semitism. It's useless and wastes time, and makes the devil happy. How can one respect a person who says there is no difference between respect and idolatry?
Thanks...he obviously didn't bother to read any further.:)
Keep on reading further....as I said, "WE" don't!
My thoughts exactly:)
Actions speak louder than terms however. That is why I posted the biblical command--which cleary forbids actions of worship...be they called veneration or not, the command clearly doesn't distinquish any difference--so nor should we. Perhaps though the tradition is more subtle and intelligent than Moses taking dictation of God's law?
Early pagans defended their paganism by claiming not to really worship the image of a god...using the same arguments of modern Christian image worshipers using doulia and latria . If one bows down before an image, or prays to someone other than Father Son and Holy Ghost, clearly they do violate the law of God.
Regarding veneration not being worship: "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck....IT'S A DUCK!"
For the most part Protestants, particularly preachers, don't give it all that much thought.
Seeing as how the questioner also thought the Orthodox 'worship' Mary, I'm skeptical of the whole thing.
Now this article by the good Fr. John is more like it! :)
I elected not to elaborate on this the other day in the interest of brevity. After trying to read your two postings today, brevity seems to be a far away place. "blessed are the paps which gave you suck" is a direct reference to Semaramis, the mother and wife of Tammuz in Babylonian lore. This woman was directly rebuked by her Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, for equating Mary with someone to be worshipped. Worshipping statues of the "Mother and Child" dates back to the apostate descendants of Noah. Erecting these statues is idloatry. Praying to Mary is a violation of the commandment to not put any Gods before Me. Jesus Christ is our only intercessor at the right hand of the Father. Unless you want to debate the definition of the word "is".
More Protestant "babble-speak"
Whenever you guys can't accept the fact that Jesus Christ honors his own mother, then you start yelling "Quack Quack, the MOTHER GODDESS, Whore of Babylon...etc."
YAWN......It didn't work when Jonathan Edwards tried to spew such propoganda, and it won't work on me.
This statement is an example of your traditions flying in the face of scripture.
There is nothing wrong with tradition....only when it contradicts plain scripture should it be examined and if needed, eliminated.
Psalm 69:8-9, [I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons, for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.] In John 2:17 we read, [His disciples remembered that it is written: Zeal for your house will consume me.]
There is not one statement anywhere in scripture that says Mary was to forever remain a virgin. This is false tradition. Jesus came from a family of at least 4 half brothers,[Matthew 13:55-56] James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas and at least 2 sisters.....children of Joseph and Mary. If they would have been children of Joseph by another woman they would have been called step brothers and step sisters. Mark also identifies the same folks in chapter 6:3.
Jesus did not have a good relationship with his brothers of the flesh and scripture identifies several episodes. In Matthew 12:46-48/Mark 3:31-34 Jesus rebukes his family by calling all who do the will of the Father his brothers, sisters and mother. In Mark 3:20-22 Jesus is called crazy by his own family and in John 7:1-10 his own brothers are attempting to get him killed. Jesus was staying away from the Feast of Tabernacles because the Jews were there waiting to kill him. In verse 3 his brothers tell him, "You ought to go so everyone can see your miracles". In verse 5 it says, For even his own brothers did not believe him.
Remember Psalm 69? "I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother's sons".
Jesus told them He would not go to the Feast but after the brothers left he went anyway, in secret, not in public. Now lots of folks have called these "brothers" brethren, followers, listeners to his every word. You can see that this is not true. These folks were called "Adephos" in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Adephos is the Greek word for brother. The Greek word for cousin is "Anepsios" found in Colossians 4:10 where the Apostle Paul describes the anepsios of Mark....Barnabas. If the writers of the gospels and Paul wanted us to know they were cousins they would have used the word "Anepsios". Paul, in Galatians 1:19 specifically calls James the "Adephos"(brother) of the Lord.
I won't even get into the scriptures showing Joseph and Mary having a normal Hebrew marriage but Ignatius in one of his letters to the Apostle John late in the 1st century (2nd Epistle) alludes to the fact that James is said to look just like Jesus, "A twin-brother of the same womb" and Hegesippus writing in the 2nd century calls James, holy from his mother's womb. He also calls Jude's grand kids kindred of the Lord and Jude himself a brother of the flesh. There is much evidence in scripture to prove that Joseph and Mary had other children and there is also history from the early church fathers. There is no proof, only tradition, of Mary's continued virginity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.