Posted on 07/31/2015 5:03:48 PM PDT by NRx
The most difficult part of my Orthodox experience to discuss with the non-Orthodox is the place and role of the Mother of God in the Church and in my life. It is, on the one hand, deeply theological and even essential to a right understanding of the Orthodox faith, while, on the other hand, being intensely personal beyond the bounds of conversation. I am convinced, as well, that the Orthodox approach to Mary is part of the apostolic deposit, and not a later accretion.
When I was doing graduate studies some decades back, I decided to concentrate my historical research on the “cult of Mary” (the veneration of Mary) in the historical Church. With that decision came a semester of intensive research, combing through materials of every sort. And throughout all of that research the question, “When did this begin?” was uppermost in my mind. I came to a surprising conclusion. It began at the beginning.
The historical evidence for Mary’s veneration is so obvious that it is simply overlooked: her place in the gospel accounts. I find much of the “historical” evidence about Christ to have a similar feature. It is amusing, and annoying, to read modern historical critics of the New Testament who come away from those documents arguing that the notion of Christ’s divinity was a later development. Somehow they manage to read the New Testament and miss the most obvious thing: the writers all believe that Jesus is divine. They fail to notice that the very existence of the “Jesus material” of the New Testament exists solely because its writers believed He was God. Every line flows from that belief.
In a similar manner, Mary’s place within the gospels carries a message of veneration. Those who do not see this obvious feature of the New Testament generally get lost in the details, reading too much into sayings such as Jesus’ “Woman what have I to do with you?” and the like.
First, the stories of Mary hold an important place in the gospel narrative. St. Mark has the least mention of her, with no birth narrative. St. Luke has the most material, and St. John perhaps the most important. Biblical critics take a “least is best” approach and will say things like, “St. Mark knows nothing of a birth narrative,” a patently overstated claim.
For me, it is the seemingly “gratuitous” material that points to veneration of Mary. St. Luke’s account has the Magnificat hymn in which Mary declares, “All generations will call me blessed.” It is a phrase that can only be compared to God’s promise to Abraham:
I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Gen 12:2-3)
In Mary’s encounter with her kinswoman Elizabeth (and with the child in her womb, John), the focus is on Mary herself rather than the child in her womb.
But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. (Luk 1:43-44)
Later in Luke, when the child Jesus is presented in the Temple, the elder Simeon prophesies:
Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. (Luk 2:34-35)
Here, Mary is linked to the Cross of Christ in the piercing of her soul.
I describe these stories as “gratuitous” in that they go well beyond the simple point of the Virgin Birth. Mark and John have no mention of the conception or birth of Christ (though they both include Mary in their narrative). The abundance of Marian material in Luke can only point to her veneration in the primitive Church. She is not just the Virgin who gives birth to Christ – she is also blessed by all; she is the cause of joy to the Prophet John even in his mother’s womb; she is a unique participant in the sufferings of Christ, destined herself for a mystical sword that will pierce her very soul.
This is information that points to the unique place of Mary in the first century Christian community. How can the Church not venerate one whom John the Baptist greeted with a leap of joy when he was in the womb? How can the Christian community be rightly centered on the Crucified Christ and ignore the soul-pierced Mother? The material in Luke is prima facie evidence of the primitive veneration of the Mother of God. That veneration never ceases in the Church, but matures over time as the Church considers the meaning and depth of Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection.
It is obvious that many Christians would prefer to read only Mark’s gospel and ignore the obvious implications in Luke and John.
John’s gospel seems to me to be marked with a profound understanding of the mystery of Mary. Of special note is his first mention of her. We meet her at the Wedding in Cana. John provides no introduction to her character – he presumes a prior knowledge on the part of his readers. At the Wedding, the wine runs out. And with no explanation of a practical sort, John simply relates that Mary tells Jesus, “They have no wine.”
It is profound. His disciples have seen nothing as yet. No miracles have been performed (this Wedding will be the scene of the first miracle). And yet Mary knows who He is and what He means. She is already fully initiated into the truth of His life and ministry.
Many Protestants have made much of Christ’s reply to her: “What is this between you and me?” They have treated the statement to mean: “What business is this of yours?” In fact, it simply asks, “What is this between you and me?” But St. John puts the statement in a context: “For mine hour has not yet come.” Christ says to His mother, “It’s not time. This doesn’t have to begin yet.”
They share the bond of the coming Cross. His life will be offered, a sword will pierce her soul. And once He begins, nothing can stop the movement to Golgotha. Her response is simple: “Do whatever He tells you.” It is a repetition of her earlier, “Be it unto me according to your word.” Her complete humility and self-emptying before God is a human reflection of the self-emptying of Christ on the Cross. With this new “fiat,” the inexorable journey to the Cross begins.
The mystery of her participation in Christ does not end with historical moments – for the sharing of those moments in the gospels are in no way merely concerned with the historical record. They are primarily theological moments. She holds not just a place in the history of salvation, but in its theological understanding and existential participation as well. The gospels are written for our salvation, and not as mere information.
And it is this theological and existential reality that are missing from many contemporary accounts of the Christian faith. The question is often asked, “Why do I need to venerate Mary?”
First, the Orthodox would not say, “You need to venerate Mary.” Rather, we say, “You need to venerate Mary as the Theotokos” (birth-giver of God). This is the theological title dogmatically assigned to her by the Third Ecumenical Council. She is venerated because she is Theotokos. To venerate the Theotokos is an inherent part of rightly believing in the Incarnation of the God-Man. To ignore her as Theotokos is to hold a diminished and inadequate understanding of the Incarnation.
But this is speaking in terms of mere ideas. The Incarnation is not an idea – it is a reality – both historical and now eternal. The Incarnation is the God/Man Jesus Christ. And, more fully, the Incarnation is the God/Man Jesus Christ born of the Holy Spirit and the Theotokos. This is what is asserted in the Nicene Creed.
The reality of this statement is not an idea, but a Person, both in the case of the God/Man, and in the case of the Theotokos. The act of believing in the Incarnation of Christ is made manifest in the worship that is properly directed towards Him and in the veneration that is properly directed towards the Theotokos.
And it is this that is so difficult to explain to the non-Orthodox. For doctrines are easily perceived by them as ideas, even factoids. In Orthodoxy, these doctrines are living realities. It is of little importance to acknowledge that someone is, in fact, my mother. It is of the utmost importance that I honor my mother (by Divine command) and love her. We do not think doctrine. Doctrine is a description of the realities by which we live. We venerate the Theotokos because, knowing what we know, we cannot do otherwise.
The answer to that depends on whether or not you believe Jesus Christ is God.
I believe Jesus Christ is God, therefore God has a mother.
He is Divinity even when he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. So if he is under the law like the scriptures say he has to obey all commandments. He could not be sinless Messiah without keeping the ten commandments which especially has him to honor his Mother and Father. So God had a mother the minute he became man by a woman.
Which is First John 4. The test for the antichrist spirit would be to deny his Divinity in the flesh/humanness.
So yes She is the Mother of God when he entered her by conception by The Holy Spirit. If he has no mother you got no Saviour because it is the law he was born under.
Yes and no. Virtually all of the Oriental Orthodox are Miaphysites, or better said Non-Chalcedonians. They believe that the divine and human natures of Christ are completely combined without any remaining distinction. Greek Orthodox, for example, believe that Christ has two natures, fully human and fully divine.
This has pretty much become a distinction without a difference, words of men trying to express the nature of God with each trying to do their best initially to fight Nestorianism. I can go to an Oriental Orthodox parish and receive the sacraments if an Orthodox parish isn't available and the same goes for the Oriental Orthodox. We have Armenians, Ethiopians and Egyptians in our parish who are technically Non-Chalcedonians and they are fully involved.
It has never ceased to amaze me that the Theotokos held ώ ΌN, "The Being Who Created Beingness", in her womb!
“I once read that the teaching about the Assumption of Mary came from St. Thomas (you know, “that” Thomas...*doubting* Thomas).”
Not that I have ever heard, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t preach about it. I did hear that he was in Jerusalem when she died and angels transported him to Ephesus to be at her funeral.
Here’s an icon of the Dormition. Notice Christ holding his mother’s soul:
http://acrod.org/assets/images/Iconimages/Dormition1.jpg
What, do you suppose, that will be .... considering how close we seem to be in prophetic history to Anti-Christ's emergeance ?
The Book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ teaches that the false prophet under anti-Christ will have a church ... a religion ....
What, do you suppose, that will be .... considering how close we seem to be in prophetic history to Anti-Christ’s emergeance ?
Mary’s promise #1 for praying the Rosary:
Whoever shall faithfully SERVE ME(Mary) by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive signal graces
Would the mother of God contradict Him when He was confronting Satan in Luke 4:8 and used His Sword to rebuke satan with these old testament words?
8 And Yahshua answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship YHWH thy God, and HIM ONLY shalt thou SERVE.
I guess it depends on the definition of the word serve...
That promise seems to contradict the Word made flesh when He was quoting from the Word.
Maybe people start with the wrong premise. Maybe this Mary people ‘honor’ is an identity thief and points to another Jesus, also an identity thief..
John 4
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Mary is the mother of God in the flesh which is Jesus, but God was here from the beginning.
Doubting Thomas, the Apostle, or Thomas Aquinas?
The Apostle Thomas, “called Didymus.”
Constantinople is built on seven hills and was the last seat of the Roman Empire but for some reason a whole crowd of already deluded folks just can't put the religion of Satan and Constantinople together because that doesn't sell nearly as many books as alternative totally absurd conspiracy theories.
Hope that answers your question, if not, don't be afraid to go to Walid Shoebat's site and learn something there.
What would be even more deceitful is if Satan is running all religion. Like a three card monte game and the only way to see it- come out of it.
The birth and death of Jesus was a PLAN. ONLY GOD KNEW WHAT THE PLAN WAS .. AND HE CLEVERLY NEVER TOLD ANYBODY.
Imagine .. not even Gabriel really knew what Jesus’ mission was (to die for the salvation of humanity), to pay for the sins of mankind.
GOD kept it a secret for this reason: If Satan had known what Jesus was up to .. SATAN WOULD NEVER HAVE KILLED JESUS.
And now that Satan knows,he has created ANOTHER Jesus.
One that has all the words and deeds of the Word Made Flesh. But only when one holds the fake Jesus up to the Light can they see the counterfeit.
The real Word made flesh wasn’t born on Rome’s December 25./ and wasn’t killed on good Friday. Or raised on Easter Sunday..
And all one would have to do is look in the Word to find the real days, not the counterfeits
I know who Thomas called Didymus was. Kolokotronis is saying (post 25) that Didymus is the source of the teaching about the Assumption of Mary.
I had thought it was Aquinas, so I searched some sources. I was wrong. Aquinas validated the belief, but he wasn’t the source, but neither, apparently, was Doubting Thomas. The Encyclopedia of Catholicism references a sixth century apocryphal text, Transitus Mariae. This text refers to several of the apostles, including Thomas, being present at Mary’s assumption, but the text was purportedly authored, not by Thomas, but by the Apostle John.
An English translation of Transitus Mariae is online. It is a fascinating read!
If there is another citation or link pointing to Thomas as the original source of the Assumption doctrine, I’d be interested in it for comparative purposes.
Many thanks to FReepers for bringing this up!
Many Protestants have made much of Christ’s reply to her: “What is this between you and me?” They have treated the statement to mean: “What business is this of yours?”
Her suggestion that he make wine hints that in her mind he was just here for her delight.
And this is also shown mark 3
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Mary and he her step children or what ever they were were not followers of Jesus, if they had of been they would not have been with out and at any rate would not have had to ask permission to see him.
John 7
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest .
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly *. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come : but your time is alway ready.
7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth , because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come .
9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
10 But when his brethren were gone up , then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
In the scriptures where Mary is mentioned she is with the brethren of Jesus who did not believe in him at the time.
This all must have came later espically for James and Jude and it must have taken Mary quite some time to realize that Jesus was also her savior.
I think you’ll find I said that I had never heard that the origin of the Dormition Tradition was +Thomas. So far as I know, the first Father to speak of the Dormition was +John of Damascus in the 700s.
I am not an expert on this subject, however my understanding is that St. Thomas is considered a major source of much of the story surrounding the Dormition and the Assumption. But I also believe this falls under the heady of what we might call a “pious tradition of the Church.” The Feast is kept by the the entire Church, so the Dormition itself is pretty much dogma. However the Church has never spoken with one voice on the origins of the great Feast.
typo
heady = heading
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.
