Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK
Posted on 11/06/2015 11:30:07 AM PST by NYer
Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK
One of the things that maddens and amuses me about Protestants is something called “primitivismâ€. I’ve written about it here. “Primitivism†is the ambition to return the church to the simplest form as it was in the “early churchâ€.
The little fundamentalist church in which I grew up worked on this assumption. They were going back to basics and getting rid of all those “man made traditionsâ€. They were cutting out the denominations and prayers read out of books and all that fancy stuff and it would be just the Bible.
Their idea of the “early church†was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.
One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!
Except it wasn’t. This blog post outlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.Their idea of the “early church†was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.
One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!
Except it wasn’t.
Thisoutlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.
The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Christmas liturgy of the third century. It is written in Greek and dates to approximately 250 A.D.In 1917, the John Rylands Library in Manchester acquired a large panel of Egyptian papyrus including the 18 cm by 9.4 cm fragment shown at left, containing the text of this prayer in Greek.
C.H. Roberts published this document in 1938. His colleague E. Lobel, with whom he collaborated in editing the Oxyrhynchus papyri, basing his arguments on paleographic analysis, argued that the text could not possibly be older than the third century, and most probably was written between 250 and 300. This hymn thus precedes the “Hail Mary†in Christian prayer by several centuries.
Here's the text:
On the papyrus:
.ΠΟ
ΕΥCΠΑ
ΚΑΤΑΦΕ
ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ
ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ
ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC
AΛΛΕΚΚΙÎΔΥÎΟΥ
…ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC
MONH
…HEΥΛΟΓ
Here it is set to music:
Turns out the hymn to the Theotokos (the God Bearer) dates from 250 AD.
What is very interesting about these comparatively recent documentary and archeological discoveries is not only what we can gather from the scraps of text themselves, but how they become part of a much larger puzzle. We can piece things together to build up a better picture of the true facts.
The hymn is clearly a prayer to the Blessed Virgin asking for her intercession and assistance in time of trouble. This shows continuity with the belief of the church down through the ages. I’m thinking “Mary Help of Christians.â€
Therefore, if this hymn to the Virgin dates from 250 AD we can deduce that it must be a written record of an earlier practice. Think about it, by the time something is written down for use in the liturgy it must already have been in use for some time. Furthermore, if this prayer is part of a document that is a copy of another document, then this also indicates that the actual practice is earlier than the manuscript itself.
In addition to this, if the hymn-prayer is included in the liturgy, then it must be something which is approved by the church and in practice on a fairly widespread basis. If it is included in the liturgy, then the term “theotokos†was not simply a theological term or a theological concept, but something which was integrated into the worshipping and devotional life of the church from the earliest days.
That argument also goes the other way: if the term “theotokos†was used in a hymn-prayer venerating the Blessed Virgin, then a high view of her significance in the plan of redemption must also have been prevalent in the theology of the early church.
You want primitive Christianity? You want to worship like the “early church†then Marian devotion had better be part of it!
Has nothing to do with interpretation...There's no need to try to interpret plain, clear words...Unless you don't like what they say...
Perhaps not...But it is posted on this thread...It’s posted on every thread dealing with that topic...
That may be so, but your post to me suggested that I am one of those “you people” who uses that phrase. I am not. Please be careful when you use the term “you people” that the person you are sending the message to is included among those people.
There was only ONE Church that through Divine Inspiration assembled the books in the Bible. They did not fall from the skies and self-assemble themselves. It took over 300 years for the early Church fathers to sort out hundreds and hundreds of fragments and cross-check with the received oral tradition to tell us what the real written word of God is.
So if you doubt the interpretation of the Catholic Church, then you must toss out your Bible.
The ONE interpretation is in the Catholic Credo. If you don’t believe in the Eucharist and the role of Mary, then you may just as well be an atheist.
“Has nothing to do with interpretation”
Seriously, even while that is precisely what you are doing.
Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."Was the apprehended woman His mother? No.
Was His mother in the crowd? There's no indication of that.
Did Jesus have to make sure that His mother wasn't in the crowd so that He could make His points?
Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."Salvation,
What do YOU think?
Here's one:
If His mother, Mary, HAD BEEN in the crowd, would she have been compelled to hurl a stone at the apprehended woman - since YOU SEEM TO BELIEVE that Mary was without sin?
I'd like to have your answers. I'll wait.
Go ahead and post a link, a picture, or Copy and Paste text from a web site, if you must but try to answer my questions.
"My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,..."
So... if she was sinless, she didn't need a savior. And if she was sinless, she would have know she was sinless. Yet, she was NOT sinless. All, save one, have been born into sin since Adam's fall. Only Christ was born sinless.
Mary needed a savior. She said so as she praised her Savior.
No "interpretation" needed... it's right there, plainly stated. Seems to me that it takes "interpretation" (and an incorrect one at that) to twist those verses into some heretical trash stating that Mary was sinless.
Hoss
Nope. What Iscool is doing is simply reading the text for what it is.
It takes "interpretation" to put the Roman Catholic spin on it.
Hoss
“
And who carried Jesus in her spotless womb?
Of course, Mary is connected to Christ and thus — Christianity.
“
Well, of course, she’s connected. I just wouldn’t sing a hymn TO her.
Sure, the hymns you presented, well, we sing about ourselves. But we are not singing TO ourselves. That’s the difference, I think. I have no objection to referencing fellow believers in songs. Just not singing TO them as an object of worship.
4th century AD isn’t exactly early. But what’s a few hundred years from the NT church?
Please quote the official Catholic doctrine which supports your above statement. Your statement attempts to present a case which puts the written Words of God in harmony with oral tradition. Your very statement contradicts such.
In written Word there is only One who intercedes. In the written Word there is no Holy Eucharist to speak of.
But yes Bible Christians, as you put it, are a problem. They point out the traditions of men are not evidenced in the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God.
I am sure the use of the word worship in this article doesn’t really mean worship. Have you not been paying attention:)
There was one post that was very telling...I did not know that without Mary’s intercession there is no salvation.
The New Testament includes warnings against false teaching that was already affecting the churches. And there are plenty of heretical documents that go back before 250 AD. The oldest list of NT books dates to 170 AD, trying to combat false letters and gospels.
One of the best known was The Shepherd of Hermas: “A autobiographical tale about a certain Hermas who is visited by an angelic Pastor (Shepherd), who imparts some legalistic teaching to him in the form of an allegory. Written probably in Rome around A.D. 100.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html#shepherd
Has says Iscool is reading the text for what it is?. Nice, except that everybody else and their grandmother reads the text for what it is.
Mary’s unique role in salvation is beyond any dispute.
Among the Saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary plays a unique and privileged role.
As we’ve established, God, in choosing to become Man, ordained that men and women participate in the redemption of the human race. Therefore the Catechism prefixes any discussion of Mary with the following text:
487: What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines, in turn, its faith in Christ.
Notice the emphasis: Everything we believe about Mary is related to the Incarnation and it illuminates our Christian faith. To that end, Mary becomes our model of the perfect disciple. Nowhere is this more evident than in her response to the Angel Gabriel.
“Let it be done to me according to your word . . .”
With these words, Mary allowed God’s eternal plan for our salvation to become manifest in our time and space.
The Catechism puts it this way:
“Let it be done to me according to your word. . .”
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:
As St. Irenaeus says,
“Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”
Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert:
“The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.”
Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”
Mary, by agreeing to bring Jesus into the world, became a “cause” of our Salvation.
In doing so, she mediated between Heaven and earth. Therefore, the Church gives Mary certain titles such as Mediatrix of all Grace and Co-Redemptrix.
Again, when we hear titles such as these, we must always remember that these titles are in no way equating Mary to Jesus. To the contrary, they are meant to be understood in relationship to Jesus Christ. Mary is what she is by grace and by virtue of being “in Christ.” Since Jesus Christ is the source of all grace and Mary brought Jesus into the world, Mary is the Mediatrix of grace. Since she cooperated with God’s redemptive plan, she is Co-Redemptrix.
She is what we must strive to be. Every time we, by word or deed, bring someone closer to Christ we also function as mediators and co-redeemers. The difference is what we do imperfectly, Mary does perfectly.
With that in mind, there are five essential doctrines about Mary which we will attempt to cover:
The Immaculate Conception
The Virgin Birth
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Mary, Mother of God
Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
The Catechism states:
The Immaculate Conception
490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”. In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
Mary’s virginity
496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed”. The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:
You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:
“That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancée. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah:
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”
Mary - “ever-virgin”
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact, James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: “The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love.”
Mother of God
467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451A.D., confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
Mary’s Assumption
965 After her Son’s Ascension, Mary “aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers.” In her association with the apostles and several women, “we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation.”
. . . also on her Assumption
966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
Byzantine Liturgy, Feast of the Dormition
Mary’s Assumption
The Church teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. This is very different from Our Lord’s Ascension. Jesus by His own power, ascended into Heaven. Whereas, Mary was passively assumed to Heaven by an act of God.
This teaching of the Church was elevated to a dogma in 1950, but has been a belief of the Church going back to the earliest of times.
There are two different traditions.
In the East, it is said that she died first.
In the West, the tradition is that she was assumed before dying.
In either case, the Church believes she is in Heaven with her glorified body, as we hope to be after the Resurrection of the dead.
There is no specific Biblical text that tells us Mary was assumed. However, we must bear in mind that the Gospels were probably written prior to the event. Moreover, the Gospels were about the life of Christ. The author’s intent was not to give us a play-by-play description of every truth the Church teaches.
That said, there is Biblical precedent for Mary’s assumption.
In the book of Kings, we read about Elijah the Prophet being taken to heaven in a Chariot of fire as his apprentice Elisha looked on.
In Genesis, a character named Enoch is said to be “taken away†and finally,
the Epistle of St. Jude tells of a battle over Moses body that took place between Michael the Archangel and Satan.
Finally, there are several writings of the Early Church Fathers which support this Tradition.
Error compounded upon error primarily due to the use of non-biblical writings, lack of proper context of the Word, the lack of using the Greek and a whole lot of it could bes.
Again, ignoring His humanity. She is NOT the mother of the second person of the Godhead.
Mary is the mother of JESUS.
Who did the angel say Mary was going to give birth to?
God?
Or God with us?
And there, my FRiend, you have nailed it.
There's a glaring truth that you don't seem to grasp...If the bible was a Catholic book, wouldn't the bible defend the Catholic religion??? The bible condemns the Catholic religion left and right...The bible even shows us which books belong in the OT canon...And none of them are Catholic...
You need a different argument...There's no validity to the one you're grasping on to...
What a hoot.
God's word is Truth, apart from Catholicism and it's chutzpah in thinking that it needs to give the very word of God its stamp of approval.
If I doubt the RCC's interpretation, it's because I DIDN'T throw out the Bible.
So instead, I'll throw out the RCC's *interpretation*.
As has been well said on this thread. The only reason to *interpret* Scripture, is because someone doesn't like what it says and they're trying to make it say something else.
Well thank you for the Catholic doctrine.
By the list of references you made the Catholic case that the intercession of Mary is essential to salvation.
Please confirm my summary above before we proceed. I would not want to misrepresent your argument.
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.