Replies

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.

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

I never heard or read from the Orthodox side that perpetual virginity of Mary was grounds for losing one's salvation.

Tradition is well and good as long as it is positive and correct, and does not retard from future learning and growth, spiritually

First I think you are confusing tradition and (the Holy) Tradition. To put it simply Tradition is what is needed to correct tradition.
The Holy Tradition in the (Orthodox/Catholic) Church is the way of life of the Church, liturgically speaking after the simple rule known as lex orandi, lex credendi, that is "the way we pray is what we believe." However, departure from that rule is found in innovation and "development" particularly in the Western Church much more than the in the Eastern for various historical reasons.
The Orthodox side sees the Holy Tradition as the standard against which everything is tested. The more you depart from the life of the Church, as recorded by the fathers from the earliest known times (patristic writings), and from the consensus of the fathers (consensus patrum), the more you have strayed from the purity of faith. So, when there is a dispute, the East looks at the Holy Tradition to judge if it is in line with how the early Christians prayed (and believed), or not.
This approach is "standard operating procedure" in the East, and in the West at times. The current Pope, for example, is certainly perceived by the East as being orthodox and patristic in his approach to the life of the Church.
The Holy Tradition does not "retard" any "development" but serves as a quality check mechanism to make sure the development is not outside the faith held by the early Church. If you think about it, the Apostolic faith should have very little reason, and should lead to changes if it was delivered properly.

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 is an arbitrary rule made by the Reformation, based on an assumption that the entire Church has been in apostasy for 1,500 years prior. The Bible itself does not say everything believed must be in the Bible. By definition, God is not limited in his options; he can reveal himself any way he wants; it doesn't have to be in the written form.
Besides, in extremis, one can argue that even a belief that a book is a word of God can qualify as idolatry.

This, I think, is the concern most Protestants have with Mariology, in that it may lead to idolatry accidentally

That is a very valid concern.

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

Although I have never heard it myself, I was gently reminded by Alex that the Orthodox actually have prayers asking Mary to save us! This is particularly disturbing because the Orthodox do not share the Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception and consider Mary ontologically no different than you and me, but—unlike any of us—the most decent and saintly human being that ever lived, but human being nonetheless!
I have personally seen Orthodox faithful show signs of reverence than equal or exceed what you would expect reserved only for God and have asked them about this practice. Needless to say I received less than satisfactory answers.
So, I absolutely agree with the Protestant concerns and objections regarding the apparent "deification" of Mary in private and canonical practice,

Anyway, your statements are why I as a Protestant have always found much more kinship with the Orthodox, rather than Catholic churches

It's hard to generalize like that. In some aspects the Orthodox Church is less dogmatic, but in others the Orthodox lead the way in being inflexible.
Liturgically, Mary is always mentioned as "Our most pure, ever-vrigin Lady, the Theotokos," but the Council of Ephesus refers to her only as the Holy Virgin Mary, Theotokos (Mother of God).
There is no doubt that all Christian Churches from that day on (early 5th century) subscribed to her as the Mother of God and that to this day the Churches that evolved from the Undivided Church (Latin, Greek, Coptic, Syrian) consider her a perpetual Virgin liturgically and otherwise.
There is no doubt that most Church theologians considered her pure before and after the Birth even as early as the 3rd century, and the Protoevangelium of James, an influential second century book is the main source of that belief only decades removed from the last living first century Apostles.
So, we can pretty much be sure than at least part of the Church believed in her perpetual virginity as early as the second century. That's 1,900 years! Does that prove it is true? Of course not. But it is pretty amazing that it was accepted as such as a matter of faith (de fide) early on, although it was not necessarily taught as a prerequisite for our salvation.

The Orthodox may appear less dogmatic because they have fewer dogmas, but the stricter adherence to Tradition makes them equally stand-offish, maybe even more, than the Catholics. Also, in the West, the word "heretic" attained a meaning somewhat different from the original. That's just because the Latin fathers were such poor learners of Greek. :)
wohich the English version was derived means to set aside. In fact it used to apply to things set aside for God (as sacrifice), but in Christianity, especially in Ecumenical Councils, it attained a meaning of being considered outside of Christianity (which could be interpreted, based on the belief that salvation is only in Christ, as equivalent to someone being condemned to hell, although this was to the meaning of anathemas).
After the break between the East and the West, the West "radicalized" the meaning of heresy to include even a ritual of condemning the anathematized to hell, which is scandalous to say the least.

You would find that the Orthodox and Catholics stand united in disagreeing with you here. Having been voted somoene's favorite Bible skeptic on the FR, even I would have to disagree with you on that one. :)