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
Already told you art. Not playing your game.
Are your posts your opinion or official church teaching?
You won’t answer the yes-or-no question whether some syllogisms are formally valid or invalid.
That is an infallible proof of intellectual dishonesty. It is precisely the same as a man who will not answer whether two-plus-two equals four.
Scripture tells us that Jesus is God made man. Scripture tells us that Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb, and that she gave birth to him.
Scripture says that Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Scripture says that Jesus is God.
It is therefore totally irrational to say that we do not know from Scripture that Mary is the mother of God.
Irrationality never has an honorable explanation. Mental disease or retardation are common. Guilty secrets are common. Hatred and bigotry are also common.
I now understand why you get banned so often.
Commonly held Catholic teaching.
References for that?
That was not done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit as He had not yet been given. So that example fails.
In Acts 15 there is no mention of apostolic succession nor instructions on how to appoint leaders.
However, Paul does give the qualifications for elder and deacon, the only offices mentioned in the NT, and the Catholic church does not follow those very well.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
You can call her what you wish, but that is not the Mary the Holy Spirit in the NT refers to.
Which means it is not authoritative.
IOW, the opinion that the church has authority over Scripture is just an opinion, not a fact supported by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God.
Then nobody is obligated to accept the Catholic church’s opinion and teaching that it has authority over Scripture. It is binding on no one.
metmom: References for that?
Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers. This is the letter delivered by them:
The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth: "It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell."(Acts 15:22-29)
Please provide the sources. Else we don’t know if this is your opinion or official church doctrine.
It reflects that the apostles' understanding was that our Lord had established them in an apostolic office that continues after their death. There is nothing in the Scriptures to contradict this understanding. Where in the Bible does it say what they did was wrong? I will stand with the apostles and the Bible.
In Acts 15 there is no mention of apostolic succession nor instructions on how to appoint leaders.
It does show that the presbyters shared in the authority of the apostles in governing the Church. Sorry, but the Bible shows that the Holy Spirit teaches through the its officially appointed pastors, not that we as individuals are free to teach on their own contrary to them.
Yet Paul was not appointed by the disciples. And this is crucial to understand in that it shows God can and does choose who He wants to be in the ministry.
I present what is my best understanding of Church teaching. If you follow my posts you will see that I regularly quote from Church sources. If you take issue with it then show where I am wrong.
But his ministry had to be recognized by the other apostles in order for it to be known by the Church. Otherwise anyone could claim that they were chosen directly by God. Do you claim that anyone after Paul was chosen by God and speaks with the authority of an apostle? Nor does the example of Paul take away from the fact that there were those who were chosen and commissioned by the apostles. Paul himself did this with Timothy and Titus, and instructed Titus to do the same. How can you claim that this line of commissioning shown in the Bible has come to an end?
This was not a decision made just by the apostles and presbyters.
The catholic should take special heed to this as it forbids those things sacrificed to idols.
This is a reminder that idolatry is not allowed. The statutes of Mary need to go as does the worship of Mary in the rcc. See the picture at the beginning of this thread.
We also have the injunction against blood going back to the OT prohibition against consuming blood. This refutes the catholic position on drinking the blood at Mass.
This section of Scripture is very condemning of current roman catholic teaching.
If the catholic wants to hold others to this standard then the catholic is only allowed to post official roman catholic teachings and not their understanding of them. Sources would need to be included.
This was not a decision made just by the apostles and presbyters.
Their letter said is was the decision of the apostles and presbyters. The agreement of the whole church was their acceptance of their authority and this decision.
This is a reminder that idolatry is not allowed. The statutes of Mary need to go as does the worship of Mary in the rcc.
Since Catholics do not worship statues or Mary your statement is false.
We also have the injunction against blood going back to the OT prohibition against consuming blood. This refutes the catholic position on drinking the blood at Mass.
I will stand with our Lord Jesus Christ who said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. If you find this saying hard and cannot accept it then you are free to join the other disciples who returned to their former way of life.
Did it? He was called by Christ Himself.
26When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. Acts 9:26-27 NASB
Do you claim that anyone after Paul was chosen by God and speaks with the authority of an apostle?
Let's be clear of what an apostle is first. If we hold it to be the traditional definition then there are no apostles after the original disciples and Paul died as none had an eyewitness account of the resurrected Christ.
Nor does the example of Paul take away from the fact that there were those who were chosen and commissioned by the apostles. Paul himself did this with Timothy and Titus, and instructed Titus to do the same. How can you claim that this line of commissioning shown in the Bible has come to an end?
No one is denying the disciples and Paul had converts and some went into the ministry.
The roman catholic position is contrary to this in that it claims that ONLY those commissioned by the disciples and so on and so on are "legit". By rcc teaching Paul would not be legit as he did not receive his commission from the original disciples.
Yet Paul's example shows otherwise.
What the catholic cannot deny, or shouldn't deny, is the ability of Christ to call into commission today men into the ministry as He determines and how He determines.
Paul is that example.
And how do you know who these are? How can you know that I might not be one?
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.