Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: 1010RD; annalex; PugetSoundSoldier
Also, I am interested to know if believing in Mary as stated in either the Orthodox or Catholic traditions is considered a saving doctrine, that is if I don't believe in Mary as described am I still eligible for Heaven?

The only dogmatic aspect of Mary that is considered essential to the Orthodox faith is that she is the Holy Virgin Mother of God (Theotokos), (Canon I, Council of Ephesus, AD 431). Note that it doesn't say "ever-virgin." However, in the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) Pope St. Leo I refers to her as 'ever virgin Mary' in his letter to the Council.

This dogmatic requirement was in response to those (such as Nestorius) who taught that she was Christotokos (Mother of Christ), denying Jesus' divinity. As such Theotokos is intimately related to the Christiological dogma of the Church, namely that Christ is fully God and fully man, one person in two natures. Denying one is also dneying the other. And denying any of the basic pilalrs of chrisianity (Trinity, Chrisotlogy, Theotokos) is essential aspecy of the Christian faith.

The Orthodox do not judge who goes to hell and who doesn't. That is up to God. However, they would tell you that denying that Mary is the Holy Virgin Theotokos would disqualify you as a Christian, as per the Council of Ephesus.

538 posted on 08/31/2009 4:34:13 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50
Christian morality is an amalgam of several factors that influenced it over time, and from different cultural realities. Mariology is a reflection of a belief that developed in the early Church, rather than something that was there, clearly defined, from the beginning.

...

The only dogmatic aspect of Mary that is considered essential to the Orthodox faith is that she is the Holy Virgin Mother of God (Theotokos), (Canon I, Council of Ephesus, AD 431). Note that it doesn't say "ever-virgin."

Thank you, Kosta50, for the words. On these points I think you will find zero disagreement with Protestants; we agree that Mariology developed over time, and that the only Biblical reference we have is to Mary being a virgin up to the point the birth of Jesus. Beyond that it is a belief that has evolved over 500+ years, at a minimum.

And I think we would find common ground on a statement that belief (or lack thereof) in the eternal virginity of Mary is not grounds for sacrificing your salvation.

Tradition is well and good as long as it is positive and correct, and does not retard from future learning and growth, spiritually. When tradition becomes the limiting factor, or when a body of writings outside the Bible become the true "guidebook to salvation" then we have entered into idolatry - we have something higher than the Word of God that we answer to.

This, I think, is the concern most Protestants have with Mariology, in that it may lead to idolatry accidentally. If you take a survey of US Catholics, I think you'll find a high percentage who do not understand the subtle difference between praying to Mary to ask her to ask Jesus to save us, and praying TO Mary to ask HER to save us. Based on my 12+ years as a Catholic student (and having family who are Catholics), I would say more US Catholics believe the latter than the former.

So most Protestants take the stance of trying not to trip our brothers up; remove the potential stumbling blocks in the first place, so that the focus of our attention is unequivocal.

Anyway, your statements are why I as a Protestant have always found much more kinship with the Orthodox, rather than Catholic churches. Orthodoxy, to me, seems to be much more up-front about the realities of its own dogmas (and believe me, I have plenty of my own!), and unwilling to condemn a man as a heretic (essentially condemning to hell) for not following a purely traditionally-based dogma.

Essentially, the Orthodox - to me - focus on the big fundamentals (the virginity of Mary at the time of Jesus' birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, etc.) and say "this is also what we believe based upon tradition and 1500 years of research, but it's not needed to be saved". And I find that on the big fundamentals we have 100% agreement - truly "catholic" in our beliefs, Protestant and Orthodox.

As a Protestant, though, I find a much greater stand-off with Roman Catholicism in that they demand you must accept everything said, everything based on that tradition and 1500 years of research, or you are a heretic (denying the Catechism) and will not be saved.

I guess I think Christianity is a pretty simple set of ideas and beliefs, not a 2000+ list of rules and regulations to be followed. Christ set us free from the legalities of the Old Testament; to this Protestant the Catholic Church is attempting to take us back to those thousands and thousands of rules and regulations.

539 posted on 08/31/2009 5:11:54 PM PDT by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the Defense of the Indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies ]

To: kosta50
Interesting again, but isn't Nestor simply expressing the belief in Theosis? That is that Christ grew from "grace to grace" as we read in the Scriptures.

That he did so sinlessly is expressly Christian, but if he were God from the beginning where is the sacrifice?

Is the belief that Mary is Christotokos a denial that Jesus became divine through obedience and faith or simply that He was not born divine?

Do you find it peculiar that Jesus the Christ had to ascend to his Father to complete his mission, bodily untouched by human corruption?

How would you critique or view the accuracy of this description from Wikipedia: Christology

543 posted on 09/01/2009 12:09:22 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson