Posted on 11/20/2016 10:43:00 AM PST by NRx
Among the greater mysteries of the New Testament are those surrounding the Mother of God. A large segment of modern Christianity has become tone deaf in this regard, a result of centuries of antagonism towards certain aspects of older tradition. It is a deafness that grieves my heart, primarily in that it represents a great gulf within the broader experience of the faith. A few years after my reception into the Orthodox Church, a friend from my Anglican past asked me if I ever thought of returning. He had no idea of how foreign the thought was to me. But within my mind, the first thought was the absence of Mary. I think I said something to the effect that I could never consider leaving “my mother.”
I’m not sure what those who are strangers to Mary imagine goes on in the life of an Orthodox or Catholic Christian. I cannot speak for Catholics (they’re more than capable of speaking for themselves). First, I know that there is nothing even remotely like worship accorded to her. The entire experience of veneration seems to have been lost within Protestant thinking. I often use examples of patriotic feeling, or some such inadequate experience, to suggest analogies. But, in truth, it is an experience that has no parallel.
For one, I have no conception of Mary apart from Christ. She is not someone-in-herself to be considered alone. The traditional title affirmed by the 3rd Ecumenical Council is “Theotokos,” the “Birthgiver of God.” In the same manner, we say of Christ, “born of the Virgin Mary.” Christ is the God become man, and His humanity is utterly and completely derivative of Mary. He is bone of her bone and flesh of her flesh. It is the nature of our humanity that if we speak of His Body and Blood, we cannot do so in a manner that excludes her from that reality.
But saying this can easily be lost in words of doctrine. Doctrine is always a discussion of reality, and it is the reality we want rather than the words. The Body and Blood of Christ are not an abstraction. They are a sweet warmth within the experience of the believer. How would I describe to the non-Christian the experience of communion? There are no words that I would ever exchange for that singular taste.
The oldest known devotion to Mary can be found in the words of a hymn that is documented to have existed and been sung before the middle of the 3rd century. It remains a very important hymn within Orthodoxy to this day:
Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Theotokos:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble;
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.
Anyone who might suggest that this hymn represents some pagan-importation is simply historically ignorant. The 3rd century is the great century of martyrs when the Church was in constant conflict with the official paganism of the Empire. There is no historical legitimacy for a claim of a paganizing of the faith during this period. Honoring Mary, including asking her intercessions, was perfectly at home within the mind of the primitive Church.
But what heart first uttered this cry to the compassion of the Theotokos? How did the Church learn of such a thing? That compassion is well described, for it was prophesied in Scripture.
At the time of Christ’s presentation in the Temple (at 40 days of age), Mary is warned about his coming role in Israel, and told that “a sword will pierce your own soul also” (Lk 2:34-35). This is more than maternal grief. Her union with Christ, expressed in the words of her innocent humility, rendered her uniquely vulnerable at the Cross. Christ is wounded for our transgressions, but she is wounded as well. The Church’s instinct and experience says that she is vulnerable to the sufferings of all.
The word translated “compassion” (εὐσπλαγχνία) is itself worth noting. It seems to be a Greek effort to translate a Hebrew word (רַחֲמִים rachamim) and indicates a deep pain identified with the womb. It is the very deep heart of maternal suffering.
The fear of this experience and knowledge, I suspect, is driven by the centuries-old accusation of “Mary-worship,” as well as an idea that anything or anyone given honor other than God represents competition for God, and denigrates His glory. People might argue with the form that honor has taken over the centuries (icons, candles, hymns, prayers, etc.), but at no time has there ever been any intention of offering worship. Indeed, that would be condemned as the worst of heresies.
But we have forgotten the ancient Christian ethos of honor and veneration. The Scriptures nowhere describe God as “alone.” Instead, He is consistently depicted as the Lord of “Hosts” (a vast crowd). The God made known in Christ is a relational God who is Himself described as “love.” The honor and veneration given to the saints within the Church is simply the liturgical expression of love. It is not worship. Generations of Christians, however, have become estranged from the court of Christ, and fancied the Kingdom either as a democracy, or the King without His entourage. They have forgotten the place of the King’s mother and the honor due His friends. In short, we have become rude in our spiritual bearing and made ourselves strangers to heaven.
God is a generous God, quick to forgive. He has not allowed us to destroy the ethos or the witness of the Apostles’ successors. The reality of His heaven abides. We can regain was has been lost, beginning, perhaps, with careful consideration of the doctrine and practice involved (free of passions and mischaracterizations). But only time and usage heal what is essentially a relational matter.
Perhaps reciting the words of that ancient hymn that has found its place on the lips of saints through the ages would be a good place to begin.
We need all the friends we can find!
Written in honor of the Feast of the Entrance of the Mother of God into the Temple, November 21
Jesus appealed to the Scriptures when tempted by Satan.
"It is written" is used 60 times in the NT in an appeal to the OT Scriptures.
We have the example of the Bereans searching the Scriptures.
Mary's family was very well acquainted with the Scriptures as attested in Luke.
If the Bible is not the standard against truth is measured then we have to allow the Mormon the Book of Mormon and the Muslim the Koran.
I looked all through your post and I could not find the word “only.”
We have everything we need in the Bible to know how we can attain salvation and have the proper relationship with Christ.
Except the Bible itself shows that the Church, through the gathered Apostles and Presbyters, speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit. See Acts 15. If the Bible attests that that authority existed once then it continues to exist today. Peace.
And there we have the caveat! Tell me, what is the difference between saying we are justified by the grace of God without any merit on our part BUT we must do good works and "cooperate" with God's grace in order to go to heaven and saying we are saved by the grace of God AND our works? The "whitewashed sepulchers" are those who outwardly profess to be righteous by their own works but have NOT received the righteousness of God by faith versus those to whom Christ's righteousness is imputed and are TRULY cleansed of all sin and their works are evidence of that inward change. Our works do not save us - and they don't KEEP us saved. That is what grace is all about!
Yes, the Holy Spirit continues to work through the ekklesia, the church, the body of believers. Your argument presumes apostolic succession which is not supported in the New Testamemt. God can call anyone to serve Him as He did with Paul.
I asked you whether you affirmed that Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
You replied that you refused to “play your little game.”
That is, you DID refuse to affirm that Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Now you do affirm it.
Here is another yes-or-no question:
Does Jesus Christ have a mother?
Now you do affirm it.
To be specific, I said, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
As I said, not gonna play your game.
I've seen you try this before on other threads.
It fails as the title, "mother of God", conveys more than the roman catholic would like it to. It conveys the meaning that God had a beginning.
Now, I've answered your questions. Time for you to answer mine that I've asked and you've yet to answer.
Are you willing to agree, based on the New Testament, there is only One Redeemer and Mediator?
What is your evidence that the title “Mother of God” means God had a beginning?
I will answer your questions when you have FOR THE FIRST TIME answered one of mine:
Answer yes or no:
Is Jesus Christ God and does he have a mother?
Your attitude, Arthur, is why people don't like to play with you on these threads.
As noted, I've answered one of your questions and I've told you I'm not playing your game.
The ball's in your court to answer my question from post 118.
Catholics VENERATE Mary, as Jesus did. We WORSHIP God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Mary BEGAN to be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, who existed from all eternity, when He took a human nature by being conceived in her womb.
The objection that Mary cannot be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity because that would necessitate God’s having a beginning, is an idiotic objection that would have got you laughed at by any catechized eight-year-old from the First Century to this century.
Every catechized Christian child knows that in Christ there is one eternal Divine Person, and, since the moment of His conception in His mother’s womb, two natures.
Any catechized Christian child would laugh at an adult, claiming to be a Christian, who thinks that, if Christ’s human NATURE had a beginning, then His divine PERSON must have had a beginnong.
Yet, that is the ENTIRETY of the argument you have been making to me: If Christ’s human NATURE had a beginning, then his divine PERSON had a beginning.
Catholics believe Mary was immaculately conceived and was without sin. Pure unbiblical heresy.
I see you’re not answering my question.
Which is why the title "Mother of God" is not Scriptural. You even tacitly admit that when you explain who Mary is. You call her "Mary the Mother of Jesus, the Son of God" or "Mary the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity". You use these words to clarify that you aren't implying Mary is THE mother of the Trinity. Why isn't Scripture sufficient to call her what the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to call her, "Mary, the mother of Jesus"?
Also, your gamesmanship over demanding Ealgeone answer your question EVERY TIME YOU ASK IT, in the way you expect it to be answered, is exposed for what it really is....a game.
I’m not answering your question because it is not about the motherhood of Mary.
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.