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!
Jesus showed us what OT scripture is:
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
There are no Catholic Deuteracomicals in those books...They don't belong in the bible...Jesus did not build his church on a religion that discredits and rejects the very words of God to it's members...
Also I noticed most of your post were not your words. Please post the references.
Good call!
Oh yes, so the great constellation of Catholic theologians, to say nothing of the leading Evangelical and Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism, and the long litany of saints and martyrs, all got it wrong!
What did they miss, that those who disagree find?
Perhaps, if you really spend time reading the abstract I sent you, you may get an idea of the sources used to show Mary’s central role in our redemption and as necessary intercessor.
They didn’t have to, the Incarnation speaks for itself.
Mary's intercession for the salvation of the believer is not Scriptural....plain and simple.
Yep. Wide is the road and broad is the path that leads to destruction and many there are that find it.
Perhaps, if you really spend time reading the abstract I sent you, you may get an idea of the sources used to show Mary's central role in our redemption and as necessary intercessor.
If the sources are not Scripture, they're meaningless.
The incarnation is not Mary nor did He ever tell us that Mary’s intercession is necessary for salvation.
Another fail by Roman Catholicism.
Well yes I read your references. The main point being Mary was a pivotal figure in the history of our redemption. She was the mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. However none of the theologians said she was the only one who is involved in redemptive history. Another comes to mind, maybe two, well three. Abraham, Moses and David. What I find interesting is the apostles do mention in their epistles Abraham, Moses, David and many other giants of faith but not Blessed Mary.
One has to inquire why the NT is silent on the central role of Mary as espoused by Catholics. Mary as a key co-redeemer and co-mediator is absent in the NT writings. Which leads me to believe the doctrines were formulated at a later date.
The written Word of God is clear. We have but One Redeemer, Jesus Christ and but One Mediator, Jesus Christ. Why add to God's Word? All the great men you quoted are not apostles, and the apostles never wrote anything like what they claimed. Which brings us to your original comments:
The oral tradition tells us that without Mary’s intercession, and belief in the written and oral words that instruct on the Holy Eucharist, there is no salvation.
What you presented from the early theologians had the theme of Mary's importance centered on her role as the vessel who carried, gave birth to and raised Messiah. Well they are right. That's a significant historical link in the history of redemption. As is Abraham, Moses, David and others. Yet Abraham, Moses and David are not given such titles as Mary.
It seems the argument you bring forth and not the early theologians is if there's no Mary, there's an incomplete redemption. Could not a Sovereign God choose another worthy woman if Mary declined? I would say if there was no David there's no Mary. Mary came from the seed of House David of the Tribe of Judah through the seed of his son Nathan. So if you are making the point Mary is most important to our salvation because without her we don't have Jesus, please expand on that.
However I digressed some. Your words were without the intercession of Mary there is no salvation. That means Mary's intercession now and until the end of time. Mary's carrying, birthing and rearing Messiah is past. A most honored place in the past in history. So what function of salvation did Mary assist in after Christ's death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven? After Pentecost? Now?
After I read the second paragraph of your copied and pasted post, I lost interest.
Mary has and had no role in anyone's salvation, but her own*.
Period.
* Some might even argue that she played no role even in her own salvation. I'm not one of them. But that's beside the point.
Do you see a problem here? The apostles did address the importance of the Incarnation. They clearly spelled out the fulfilled scriptures involved. That is what was communicated by the Holy Spirit and written down.
You have made the statement that without Mary's intercession their is no salvation. If this is correct then I have to assume you believe the Holy Scriptures are incomplete, they are incomplete to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Have I assumed correctly?
Is the son of Mary God made flesh?
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
Hmmm. Instead of appealing to the Church "Fathers" I would instead like to appeal to God's word. Particularly, God's Son, Jesus:
John 14:6:
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Let's see.... NO ONE comes to the Father (who provides salvation) EXCEPT through Jesus. Seems to me the that Mary isn't listed here at all... and Jesus SAID no one comes to the Father EXCEPT through him -- God the Son.
But wait... there's more....
1 Timothy 2:5 says:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
Wait one minute!!! What did that say? there is ONE mediator between God and men.... was it Mary? CCC 969 says she's a "Mediatrix" who provides salvation....
Well, God himself has put that claim to shame as a heretical lie.... but 1 Tim. 2:5 says what? No..... there's no Mary there either! It says Jesus is the ONE mediator between God and men. And the Bible is God-breathed... inspired and inerrant.
Seems like God put that claim to shame as well.
Mary has NO unique role in salvation. No one comes to the Father except through Christ. Mary was a sinner, just like you and me.
Romans 3:23-26:
"23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Again, not one scintilla of Mary here anywhere. Except when God inspired Paul to write that "all have sinned" -- ALL. Paul wasn't inspired to write, "all have sinned, except for Jesus' mother Mary...." All means exactly what it says. The only sinless person born into this world was Christ Jesus. Mary was born into sin and so was her mother... all the way back to the children of Adam and Eve.
Seems to me that the error here lies with the lies taught but the Roman Catholic Church. God's word says Christ is the one mediator, and that no one comes to the Father except through him... the Roman Catholic Church teaches the opposite.
God cannot lie. That leaves only one option.
It's written in the scriptures very simply and plainly; why won't Roman Catholics just take God at his word instead of fabricating another gospel?
Hoss
I think theotokos means Christ Bearer, at least in the Orthodox world. So absolutely Elizabeth wouldn't know that term. But it later became one of Mary's titles.
Well explained. To complicate matters, the LXX (OT) replaced YHWH (Jehovah) with LORD throughout the OT. The KJV followed that tradition. This has led some to argue that Elizabeth was claiming "LORD" (Adonai) thus YHWH. The misunderstanding is on man and not God. For as revealed in the original Hebrew the Name of God is YHWH (Jehovah). A later Jewish tradition deemed saying or writing the Name was breaking the commandment of not taking God's Name in vain.
The Bible verse which helps us understand the distinction you explained between "Lord" and "God" is when Thomas exclaimed in John 20:28 "My Lord and My God."
The message of the Incarnation is clear. God chose Mary as the Mediatrix for human salvation. From ancient times, it has always been to Jesus though Mary beginning with the First Miracle. The recurring and inherently contradictory thesis of all Protestant and other types of Bible Christianity is that they cannot answer the fact that it was through Divine Providence that the early Church fathers and theologians painstakingly assembled the books in the Bible over a period of three hundred years often rejecting several scripts as inauthentic. This Divine mandate in interpreting the true Word of God did not disappear with the plague of Protestantism.
You ask for a reference on Mary, and one is provided. Instead of engaging in a careful read, it is dismissed as a cut-and-paste job. Of course, this is the kind of laziness one expects from shallow Bible Christians who easily dismiss the work of their own theologians who convert to Catholicism.
Yet we are told that the work of theologians, scholars and saints for hundreds of years must be discarded based on some interpretation given us by any one of the Tom, Dick, and Harry’s, or by the Mormons, Episcopalians, Moonies, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is sheer, unadulterated rot.
Christ taught ONE truth for ALL time. Only the Catholic Church has this ONE truth in its Credo. It has been re-affirmed by a galaxy of theologians both Catholic and converts to Catholicism. This leaves low-information Bible Christians stranded in their pews grasping for “their” own straws of interpretation.
Redleghunter: Your words were without the intercession of Mary there is no salvation. That means Mary's intercession now and until the end of time. Mary's carrying, birthing and rearing Messiah is past. A most honored place in the past in history. So what function of salvation did Mary assist in after Christ's death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven? After Pentecost? Now?
To which I will add: If Mary holds such a central role in our intercession for salvation why is there no teaching of such in the NT? No mention by John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude and Luke.
Your position suggests the Holy Scriptures are incomplete. That the Holy Scriptures do not contain the complete message of salvation. Somehow theologians 100, 200 and 300+ years later finally explained it all. How unfair to the NT church.
It didn’t even take a “careful read” to identify heretical ERROR.
Get it?
It’s not WORSHIP worship. Right?
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.