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.
I hate to dispute with you on this, but Orthodox DO NOT believe Mary was "born without sin"!
Your sources please......
"For the most Protestants..."
I don't claim to speak for the majority, but you are correct. We honor her as the Lord of the Universe choose her to be the vessel of Holiness, but her contribution is "frozen in time" and not ongoing. (As we see it)
Buddy, that was a quote from a Martin Luther sermon. If you have a beef with it ping him.
It's a matter of theological opinion, not dogma, so some Orthodox do and others do not. St. Demetrius of Rostov believed in and taught the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and had a monastic brotherhood dedicated to the Immaculate Conception.
St. Demetrius of Rostov was Orthodox, not Catholic.
Jam 3:1 My brothers, do not be many teachers, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
Jam 1:26 If anyone thinks to be religious among you, yet does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is vain.
Reagan 1:3 Seek the truth but do not be afraid to see what you find.
I'm sorry...my sources for what?
Unless it was declared dogma or doctrine at one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, then it "ain't so" as far as I am concerned. And Orthodox Christians can be wrong too.
Hey pal....I don't care who said it. It is false tradition. I am no protestant and therefore no defender of Martin Luther!
"Worship," n. 1. Courtesy or reverence paid to worth; hence, honor or respect.
A dogmatic opposition to the value of good works means that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious: that some people are more virtuous than others, that calling Mary, say Queen of Heaven, is not to make her a goddress, but to make her the epitome of godliness. Who in God's creation is more worthy than the woman who bore the son of God? If sanctity is nearness to God, then what human being was closer? Saints do stumble and fall, but have any others played the role in the Divine Comedy that Mary has? Like the Father, I don't know how you can read the first two chapters of Luke and think that Mary would afterwards live her life with the vacilation that marked the faith of Peter, for instance. I take it you really think it no more than a pretty story. After all she did not have to wait for the Resurrection to know who her son was.
Abuse of anything is holy would a violation of that commandment, though a lesser one that actually abusing the Name of God. Do you understand that, or do you not understand degrees?
If one only had the Scriptures, one might assume that what you say is true, which is,however, to ignore the incompleteness of the New Testament record and the antiquity of the notion that the brothers were the offspring of St. Joseph. The best example of that, of course, is the "proto-Gospel of St. James," which is generally dated to the 2nd century, which would make it as old as some parts of the New Testament canon. But we must look at how little is said about St. Joseph before we talk about a "normal" Hebrew marriage. As for dismissing the notion of "cousins," we must take into account the dynamics of a Semitic clan, where cousins are often as close as brothers and where first cousins often marry. Given that , as you say. the "family" was hostile to his mission--a stretch indeed if you try to include Mary, given what Matthew and Luke say about her--the Gospels deal with them only in passing. If we look at Paul as a source. you have to be especially careful, because he says nothing about the Virgin Birth. does not even mention Mary's name. Doubt that he and James ever had any heart-to-heart about life in the Bar-Joseph household.
Psalm 69:8-9
You'll find it in Psalm 68:9-10 in the "Douay-Rheims".
[An alien to the sons of my mother.]
Even condeeding that is this a christological passage, that does not means it prophesized deauls of the life of Jesus. If Paul said that know only darkly, even with the Scriptures and the witness of the Church, then the Old Testament provides us with a very murky mirror. looking at this particular Psalm, one might conclude that the lines allude to the experience of Our Lord. Then, again, looking at the whole poem, most of it does not fit. BTW, we don't use the Douay-Rheims translation (said to say).
IMHO, a significant amount of insight is gleanable from observing our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, as He was on the Cross, perfect in spirit and soul, beaten and hung on the cross, although without a broken bone, and speaks to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son."
Many interpret this passage based upon a soulish, fleshly and worldly perspective that his following statement to his disciple to "Behold, your mother." to be a veiled implication of Judaic law for another person to take care of the needs of a poor woman, or that Jesus Christ, now considers others as brothers and sisters, without any reference to genetic heritage.
If this were merely the case, then it is a bit absurd for the added comment to Mary to behold her son, who knew first hand, his appearance would obviously only bring grief to her or something that is good for nothing.
Our Lord and Savior in hypostatic union never contradicted His divine essence, although He did provide for us a perfect example of how man should live in faith to God in all things.
IMHO, the statement of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus on the Cross to his mother, emphasized directly to her a direct counterexample to her thinking that her son was perfect and destined to be King of a worldly, carnal, political system at that time and would not allow such things to ever occur.
The significance, is that Mary, although respected as the His fleshly mother, was still to be servant to Him as Lord and Savior, and not a matron of God due worship. She was not the matron of perfect spirit. The same might be said of the other disciples of the Church. Although they prayed to God from the Ascencion to Pentecost, this doesn't make them progenitors of the Holy Spirit.
IMHO, a much more powerful lesson is provided in Scripture from its simplest meaning. When God acts according to His plan, He doesn't need anybody else to supplement His grace. The virgin birth was sufficient to insure the male offspring born as the Second Adam occured. An Immaculate conception of Mary or even here previous generations wasn't necessary to provide a second Adam. This doesn't diminish her, but it also doesn't encourage false worship.
The theologic lessons available from understanding agape love and the brethren are still possible without encouraging secondary issues that distract from faith.
Insofar as the RC might improve by faith through Christ in their doctrines taught them by their pastors, that is between them and God and all things are possible through faith in Him. I applaud their faithfulness. I have also found the Logos to present a tactful method of disciplining Mary's thinking, decisions, and behavior as the Mother of Jesus which may not have been as spiritually exemplary as some might assume.
Yep, my fellow protestant, you pulled a boner with that one. Catholics (Roman and Orthodox) are crystal clear when it comes to veneration of the saints. It doesn't help to debate from a mistaken premise.
Sex with one's husband isn't impure. There is nothing inconsistent with having children and remaining pure.
The commandment to "be fruitful" didn't have an asterisk (at least not in my KJV Bible). It's possible to be fruitful and pure simultaneously.
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.