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
Scripture tells us that Jesus is the Word made flesh, i.e., that the Word, which was God, became flesh, i.e., became Jesus Christ.
Scripture tells us that Jesus, who is God, was conceived in the womb of Mary, and that she gave birth to him. This is called being a “mother.”
Therefore, Scripture DOES tell us that Mary is the Mother of God.
Yawn...
You even continue to qualify your assertions by distinguishing who Mary mothered. Did the Son of God pre-exist the incarnation? Of course. Jesus the Messiah/Christ is the name of the incarnate God/man whose physical body was conceived of the virgin Mary as prophesied. He, however, has always existed and had no beginning. Why keep arguing over this? You want to call Mary what you are taught but it doesn’t mean everyone MUST accept and believe it the same way or else they aren’t “real” Christians.
But how do we even know what is the written Word of God without the authority of the Church to certify it? On what authority did Martin Luther remove seven books of the Old Testament (and attempted to remove seven books from the New Testament) that the Church had certified as Sacred Scripture for over one thousand years?
Additionally, Scripture (see Acts 15) testifies itself that the gathered Apostles and presbyters of the Church speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. If that authority existed once, and Scripture cannot be denied, then it exists today. Moreover, the Bible shows that Paul gave Timothy and Titus, as well as those appointed by them, the mandate to preach the Gospel before the New Testament was even completed. How could they have done so if there were limited to what was written down? All that your biblical reference do is deny the private interpretation of Scripture, something that the Protestants are guilty of, not Catholics.
If Christians have disputes about the faith then they should follow the example found in Acts 15 and submit it to the rightful pastors of the Church rather than insist on their own private judgment as those who go “without any mandate from us [the Apostles and presbyters] have upset you with their teachings and disturb your peace of mind.” This is the way of the Bible, not private interpretation.
The Holy Spirit continues to guide the church today as it did back then.
On what authority did Martin Luther remove seven books of the Old Testament (and attempted to remove seven books from the New Testament) that the Church had certified as Sacred Scripture for over one thousand years?
The issue of the apocrypha was not certified as the catholic likes to claim. Those particular books were not accorded the same status as the other books of the OT until Trent.
Additionally, Scripture (see Acts 15) testifies itself that the gathered Apostles and presbyters of the Church speak with the authority of the Holy Spirit. If that authority existed once, and Scripture cannot be denied, then it exists today.
22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, Acts 15:22 NASB
Moreover, the Bible shows that Paul gave Timothy and Titus, as well as those appointed by them, the mandate to preach the Gospel before the New Testament was even completed.
Who gave Paul his authority to preach the Gospel?
Peter? Thomas? Any of the other disciples?
I really don't think you want to cite this passage in an attempt to prove "apostolic" succession.
As Paul was called by the Lord so are other men called today to preach the Gospel.
How could they have done so if there were limited to what was written down?
Well, we've asked before and we'll ask again....what record do we have of what they said?
Where is it?
All that your biblical reference do is deny the private interpretation of Scripture, something that the Protestants are guilty of, not Catholics.
LOL!
And what sources have you cited in your posts on this thread?
Are your comments regarding Acts 15 official roman catholic church teaching? If so, please provide the documentation.
Or, is this just your own personal interpretation?
Was this article that was posted approved by the Vatican? Did the Pope approve this? If not, we have to conclude this is the authors own personal interpretation. Just as your posts are your own personal interpretation.
This thread is about Mary in general. It is not specifically about her being the mother of Christ.
So again, I'll await the answers to my question.
I'll post it again in case you forgot.
Are you willing to agree, based on the New Testament, there is only One Redeemer and Mediator?
But the issue isn't about who e1 thinks Jesus is even though Catholics keep trying to make it that.
It's about inappropriate man-made titles given to Mary.
Saying *mother of God* is not about identifying who Jesus is, it's about identifying which Mary in the NT the Holy spirit was referring to.
*HE* used the term *mother of JESUS*, NOT *mother of God*.
The better question, a less loaded one, is whether our faith is based on SCRIPTURE.
And here....
Romans 10:17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Actually, according to this passage, the Gospel of John is enough to lead someone to faith in Christ.
Because that's what it says.
It states that God had a mother.
If He had a mother, He's not eternal, she pre-existed Him.
No, Mary began to be the mother of Jesus.
The Second person of the Trinity pre-existsed Mary before the Incarnation.
He did not begin with the Incarnation as your statement says.
I said that the Son, the Word, existed from eternity.
You understood me to say that the Son, the Word, began to exist at the moment of the Incarnation.
There is no point discussing anything with you until you become familiar with the English language.
I am familiar with the ENGLISH language.
Just not your version of it.
In YOUR version of the “English language,” when I say “the Word existed from eternity” you see “the Word came into existence at the moment of the Incarnation.”
Catholics have a probkem with logic
Still waiting on your answer to my question.
Of course Catholic teaching is based on Scripture. But Scripture itself teaches that the Church teaches with the authority of the Holy Spirit and that we should not disturb the peace of the Church with our private opinions.
But by what mechanism does the Holy Spirit guide the church and how are we to know it? Until this question is answered we cannot address any of the other issues that you have raised. Hint: see the gathered apostles and presbyters in Acts 15.
See the replacement of the apostle Judas in Acts 1. Acts 15 also shows that the apostles had already gathered presbyters to themselves to share in the governance of the Church. Looks like apostolic succession to me.
Jesus is the only divine Savior of mankind and the only divine Mediator between mankind and God.
Now answer my two questions:
Is this syllogism formally valid or invalid?
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is a carpenter
Ergo, Mary is the mother of a carpenter.
Is this syllogism formally valid or invalid?
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Ergo, Mary is the mother of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
I have another question, also yes-or-no:
Do you know what the following question means?
“Is this syllogism formally valid or invalid?”
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.