Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption/Dormation of Mary...

[MKJ]

Oh, the more protestant types of Anglicanism are pretty eager to have written documents, and I suspect many would try and get away with some sort of confessional document if they could. Many treat the 39 Articles as a confessional document, and IIRC some of the break-away Anglican groups have tended to look to written confession like things at times.

Liturgy should act as a lens for understanding teaching in Anglicanism, but it really doesn't any more - it is very difficult to maintain something like that when so many don't even use official liturgies even if people take their language seriously. Significant portions of the CofE make up their liturgies to suit themselves within their parishes, and the most common liturgy in use in Canada was never approved as a source for doctrine. Of course people do learn from those sources nontheless, which is one reason for increasing divergence of teaching.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

This obsession one encounters with many Westerners to have something 'official' - particularly certain strands of Anglican and almost all of Roman Catholicism, maybe a minority of Lutherans - almost warrants its own thread. Community vs. catechisms, beliefs vs. lists of doctrines, tradition vs. lectures, dare I suggest authenticity vs. authority? I don't know if I have the energy for it, but it might be very interesting.

I remember once a Roman Catholic demanding of me why, if Patriarch Bartholomew re-united with the Pope of Rome we wouldn't be obligated to follow him. I laughed and said if he got the monks of Mt. Athos to convert then he'd probably get all of Orthodoxy. Every other Orthodox I've said this too has agreed - but the Roman's response was "Who gave them that authority?!"

Yes, and that is the heart of the matter. The fact that they spend their lives in prayer and repentance is their authority. They are our theologians, and the Liturgy and hymns are our doctrines.

Mary

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, and that is the heart of the matter. The fact that they spend their lives in prayer and repentance is their authority. They are our theologians, and the Liturgy and hymns are our doctrines.

Mary

IMO, that OUGHT to count for something. Their authority I mean. Some of the most outstandingly godly men I have met have been monks, and some seem to have almost what we would have called a direct line to the heart and mind of God in some circles I used to belong to. It's very refreshing, and comforting, to find.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Oh, the more protestant types of Anglicanism are pretty eager to have written documents, and I suspect many would try and get away with some sort of confessional document if they could. Many treat the 39 Articles as a confessional document, and IIRC some of the break-away Anglican groups have tended to look to written confession like things at times.

Liturgy should act as a lens for understanding teaching in Anglicanism, but it really doesn't any more - it is very difficult to maintain something like that when so many don't even use official liturgies even if people take their language seriously. Significant portions of the CofE make up their liturgies to suit themselves within their parishes, and the most common liturgy in use in Canada was never approved as a source for doctrine. Of course people do learn from those sources nontheless, which is one reason for increasing divergence of teaching.

Such a shame. One of the most wonderful things about the Anglican Communion is the idea that it's churches are united, first and foremost, by common worship. Alas, unlike the Byzantine Rite that dominates all of Eastern Orthodoxy, that is currently just an ideal.

I was talking to someone else about this on the Lutheran subforum: the Book of Common Prayer, because it does not contain any notation, already leaves significant latitude in the musical forms. Even if the text were united, textual unity is not nearly so unifying as early modern textual cultures of post-Gutenberg Europe thought. A clown Mass and an Anglo-Catholic Gregorian plain chant are hardly one and the same simply because there is a common text.

 

[MKJ]

Such a shame. One of the most wonderful things about the Anglican Communion is the idea that it's churches are united, first and foremost, by common worship. Alas, unlike the Byzantine Rite that dominates all of Eastern Orthodoxy, that is currently just an ideal.

I was talking to someone else about this on the Lutheran subforum: the Book of Common Prayer, because it does not contain any notation, already leaves significant latitude in the musical forms. Even if the text were united, textual unity is not nearly so unifying as early modern textual cultures of post-Gutenberg Europe thought. A clown Mass and an Anglo-Catholic Gregorian plain chant are hardly one and the same simply because there is a common text.

You are absolutely right - you can have some pretty different kinds of liturgical experiences with churches using the exact same BCP.
The lack of notation element is interesting, because what it means is that it would be difficult to use the BCP, as a priest, without someone to tell you how to do it. That part is generally taught and there are a few ways of doing it depending on what tradition you come from. As parishes that use the BCP have declined, a lot of that knowledge has begun to disappear.

I agree with you too about the idea of unity that can come from texts like confessions. It's always seemed a bit odd to me that people will think it is going to be effective - if you make them very strict, then you must be elevating them too much for the sort of document they represent. But if they are easy to change, then they will not really do much to help.

Ultimately, they can't stand outside a tradition of interpretation any more than Scripture itself can.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

...unlike the Byzantine Rite that dominates all of Eastern Orthodoxy...

Just for the sake of accuracy, Orthodoxy is celebrated in more than just the Byzantine Rite. There is Western Rite Orthodoxy as well.

We believe we are united by a common faith, not a common worship.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Just for the sake of accuracy, Orthodoxy is celebrated in more than just the Byzantine Rite. There is Western Rite Orthodoxy as well.

We believe we are united by a common faith, not a common worship.

Yes, Orthodox is primarily united by common doctrine grounded in the church fathers, the seven ecumenical councils, and the monastic spiritual tradition of Byzantium and Mount Athos, but Alexander Schmemann would disagree that "Western Rite Orthodoxy" can be a thing, and the Anotichene offering of a western liturgical option remains controversial.

Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann: The Western Rite

 

[Joseph Hazen]

It doesn't matter if some people don't like the Western Rite - it exists, is growing, and has the blessing of Orthodox Bishops. Fr. Alexander Schmemann was a good man, but he is not infallible. I could quote other well educated and higher ranking priests who are all for it.

The Orthodox Western Rite is over 100 years old and has the blessing of several Orthodox Saints. Despite detractors (and there are always detractors for everything someone else is doing) it is Orthodox and it is going to be sticking around.

Also, the Russians have a Western Rite as well, and the Serbs have had it in the recent past. If we get enough converts seeking it, it will grow even more.

 

[Edial]

If our traditions are based on the Bible then why not go there?
If our traditions are based on extra Biblical data, why go there?

This is what the "teachings of men" what Jesus was warning us of meant - extra Biblical traditions.

I can note the verses if you wish.
From what I see:
- Mary was the most righteous girl of all the other girls. Also a virgin.
- She accepted what Angel told her despite of probable unbelief of Joseph and others that the baby was conceived of God.
- She was called the mother of my Lord, not the mother of God.
Lord(kurios) means "master". Sarah was calling Abraham "master" lord as well. Lord is a title and there was no capitalization in Greek.
- God has no mother because God is before Mary.
- Mary confessed she needs a personal Savior, meaning she had the original sin in her.
- Joseph did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to Jesus, meaning they had normal marital relationship after that.
- Jesus had other brothers and sisters.
- All generations (gennao) meaning spiritual children of the Gospel would call her blessed.
- ALL the Saints of old were known for their humility and obedience to the Lord. When Mary sees we elevate her the way we do, she is very displeased and saddened.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It doesn't matter if some people don't like the Western Rite - it exists, is growing, and has the blessing of Orthodox Bishops. Fr. Alexander Schmemann was a good man, but he is not infallible. I could quote other well educated and higher ranking priests who are all for it.

The Orthodox Western Rite is over 100 years old and has the blessing of several Orthodox Saints. Despite detractors (and there are always detractors for everything someone else is doing) it is Orthodox and it is going to be sticking around.

Also, the Russians have a Western Rite as well, and the Serbs have had it in the recent past. If we get enough converts seeking it, it will grow even more.

Well I hope so.

In any case, what I meant was not that Orthodoxy uses the Byzantine Rite exclusively. I meant, rather, that every Orthodox church uses the Byzantine Rite, and it does, in fact, dominate, being the overwhelming majority practice.

 

[MKJ]

If our traditions are based on the Bible then why not go there?
If our traditions are based on extra Biblical data, why go there?

This is what the "teachings of men" what Jesus was warning us of meant - extra Biblical traditions.

I can note the verses if you wish.
From what I see:
- Mary was the most righteous girl of all the other girls. Also a virgin.
- She accepted what Angel told her despite of probable unbelief of Joseph and others that the baby was conceived of God.
- She was called the mother of my Lord, not the mother of God.
Lord(kurios) means "master". Sarah was calling Abraham "master" lord as well. Lord is a title and there was no capitalization in Greek.
- God has no mother because God is before Mary.
- Mary confessed she needs a personal Savior, meaning she had the original sin in her.
- Joseph did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to Jesus, meaning they had normal marital relationship after that.
- Jesus had other brothers and sisters.
- All generations (gennao) meaning spiritual children of the Gospel would call her blessed.
- ALL the Saints of old were known for their humility and obedience to the Lord. When Mary sees we elevate her the way we do, she is very displeased and saddened.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

At least one of the things on your list - God has no mother - is considered an expression of a serious heresy, even if that isn't what is intended, so I have to wonder a bit about the principle you are working from.

What makes you think that "teachings of men" means extra-biblical traditions? That doesn't seem a particularly obvious way to understand it.

 

[PaladinValer]

At least one of the things on your list - God has no mother - is considered an expression of a serious heresy, even if that isn't what is intended, so I have to wonder a bit about the principle you are working from.

I second this.

Saying that St. Mary is Theotokos; Mother of God, doesn't mean that she is the parent of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, but that she did give birth to the very Substance That Which is God, which was Incarnated as Jesus the Christ, the Incarnation of God the Son.

 

[Edial]

At least one of the things on your list - God has no mother - is considered an expression of a serious heresy, even if that isn't what is intended, so I have to wonder a bit about the principle you are working from.

Since God is before Mary he has no mother. Mother gives a beginning to a child.
God has no beginning.

What makes you think that "teachings of men" means extra-biblical traditions? That doesn't seem a particularly obvious way to understand it.

Because extra-biblical teachings are literally teachings of men.
Biblical teachings are teachings of God.

 

[Edial]

...
Saying that St. Mary is Theotokos; Mother of God, doesn't mean that she is the parent of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, but that she did give birth to the very Substance That Which is God, which was Incarnated as Jesus the Christ, the Incarnation of God the Son.

Christ had a nature of God and nature of man.
Whether the natures were side by side or one, is debated for 2000 years and neither side can concusively prove their position.

Supposedly the title Mother of God came to be in response to heretics who did not believe the deity of Christ.
So Mary was called mother of God, meaning that Jesus was God.

Time passed and eventually we began paying undue amount of attention to Mary because she gave birth to God.

And today when Mary sees this, she dislikes every point of our veneration because she was a humble individual who needs no glory nor attention.
All glory belongs to Christ.

That's my side on this.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[PaladinValer]

Since God is before Mary he has no mother. Mother gives a beginning to a child.
God has no beginning.

Yet God was incarnate of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary and was made man.

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God

The Father is not the Son; not the Holy Spirit
The Son is not the Father; not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father; not the Son

There is only One God.

Given the above statements, and the Nicene Creed, what you appear to be arguing doesn't agree.

Christ had a nature of God and nature of man.
Whether the natures were side by side or one, is debated for 2000 years and neither side can concusively prove their position.

...yet the Oriental Orthodox, who until just last year didn't agree with the theology of the Chalcedonian Defintion, had absolutely no problem calling St. Mary, "Theotokos" and considered the idea that she wasn't the Mother of God to be heretical.

So I don't see how that holds water.

Supposedly the title Mother of God came to be in response to heretics who did not believe the deity of Christ.
So Mary was called mother of God, meaning that Jesus was God.

That's correct, so what is wrong with the title?

Time passed and eventually we began paying undue amount of attention to Mary because she gave birth to God.

That's the Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses. A title or even a theology doesn't become "untrue" because of something else which really has nothing at all to do with the title nor the theology. Her status as Mother of God and her "over-veneration" (to coin a phrase) by a minority have nothing to do with each other; one deals with Christology and the other deals with potential idolatry.

And today when Mary sees this, she dislikes every point of our veneration because she was a humble individual who needs no glory nor attention.
All glory belongs to Christ.

That's all well and good, but the reason given doesn't make logical sense.

 

[Edial]

Yet God was incarnate of the Holy Spirit by the Virgin Mary and was made man.

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God

The Father is not the Son; not the Holy Spirit
The Son is not the Father; not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father; not the Son

There is only One God.

Given the above statements, and the Nicene Creed, what you appear to be arguing doesn't agree.

It is accurate - mothers give the beginning to a child.
God has no beginning.
Even the title Mother of God was invented admittedly by us as an apologetical move to promote the Deity of Christ.
It backfired on us - many began venerating Mary.

...yet the Oriental Orthodox, who until just last year didn't agree with the theology of the Chalcedonian Defintion, had absolutely no problem calling St. Mary, "Theotokos" and considered the idea that she wasn't the Mother of God to be heretical.

So I don't see how that holds water.

And that's OK.
But it is still not in the Bible and the original intent was not to magnify Mary, but Christ.

That's correct, so what is wrong with the title?

What's wrong with the title?
Original intent of the title was lost and it turned into something else.

That's the Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses. A title or even a theology doesn't become "untrue" because of something else which really has nothing at all to do with the title nor the theology. Her status as Mother of God and her "over-veneration" (to coin a phrase) by a minority have nothing to do with each other; one deals with Christology and the other deals with potential idolatry.

To argue that most started paying undue attention to Mary due to misapplication of title Mother of God is not the Fallacy of Appealing to Masses - it is reality of life.

Most of the people venerate Mary or give her undue attention despite of her and every saint's clear wishes to give all glory to God.

That's all well and good, but the reason given doesn't make logical sense.

Most of the people who follow the title Mother of God venerate Mary.

We admittedly INVENTED the title.
We SAY we invented the title by playing on the words "mother of my Lord" said by Elizabeth.
Lord means master. Even Sarah was calling Abraham lord. And capitalization is English translation.

The logic is this - since we admittedly invented the title Mother of God, it backfired at us, since the side-effect of our invention is that the majority of people started to venerate Mary ... the very thing she did not want.

I am speaking in defense of Mary, not against her.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Cappadocious]

Since God is before Mary he has no mother. Mother gives a beginning to a child.

Were you created by God, or by your mother?

If you say that you were created by your mother, you deny God's creative dominion.
If you say that you were created by God but had your beginning in your mother, then you have made a distinction.

If you say that you had your beginning in your mother, that means that you entered time in your mother and were humanly formed in her, and that you did not exist before then.
But because Christ is the eternal God, we can say: Christ entered time in his mother and was humanly formed in her, but existed before he entered time, unlike you.

So let us say with the ancient Christian declaration that Christ is: "Begotten in eternity of the Father without a mother, begotten in time of the Virgin Mary without a father."

Now you can accept that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos (the bearer of God) and Mater Theou (the mother of God.)

 

[Edial]

Were you created by God, or by your mother?

My mother gave me my beginning. That's what mothers do.
Before my mother I never was.
The Son of God always was.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is accurate - mothers give the beginning to a child.
God has no beginning.

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is God the Son Incarnate
3. The Son isn't the Father; isn't the Holy Spirit

The theology of Theotokos doesn't suggest that St. Mary was before God, only that she gave birth to God. Given the theology of the Incarnation, this seeming paradox is resolved.

Even the title Mother of God was invented admittedly by us as an apologetical move to promote the Deity of Christ.

Not quite. The title was invented to DEFEND the Deity of Christ and DEFEND the theology of the Nicene Creed.

It backfired on us - many began venerating Mary.

Veneration =/= worship. Two different words in Greek, which was the language of the Holy Bible used by the Early Church. The same goes for Latin, if my memory is correct. Thus both ancient and influential theological languages noted a difference.

I might add that Martin Luther himself continued to recite the Marian rosary.

And that's OK.
But it is still not in the Bible and the original intent was not to magnify Mary, but Christ.

No one has suggested otherwise. Marian veneration, or at least proper veneration, is merely in thanks for her "yes" to God and is the fulfillment of what she herself said: all generations shall call me blessed. Prophetic words.

What's wrong with the title?
Original intent of the title was lost and it turned into something else.

I'm sorry, but that simply is not one bit true.

To argue that most started paying undue attention to Mary due to misapplication of title Mother of God is not the Fallacy of Appealing to Masses - it is reality of life.

That's a Straw Man because that's not what my posts have argued. No one here have suggested people turn to her above and beyond Christ. Please find one post advocating that, and then your objection has merit in this thread. Otherwise, the objection has no validity until it is substantiated.

Most of the people venerate Mary or give her undue attention despite of her and every saint's clear wishes to give all glory to God.

Most of the people who follow the title Mother of God venerate Mary.

No proof given. Only your word.

We admittedly INVENTED the title.

Which is implied by Holy Scripture. Quite heavily, if we want to believe it also teaches Jesus is God Incarnate.

We SAY we invented the title by playing on the words "mother of my Lord" said by Elizabeth.
Lord means master. Even Sarah was calling Abraham lord. And capitalization is English translation.

No one made an argument of capitalization being necessary.

Furthermore, I'm not certain that's the actual source text for the actual titles of Mother of God or even Theotokos. The first indisputable use of the term was by St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria and the great hero of Nicaea I.

The logic is this - since we admittedly invented the title Mother of God, it backfired at us, since the side-effect of our invention is that the majority of people started to venerate Mary ... the very thing she did not want.

That claim has yet been substantiated.

I am speaking in defense of Mary, not against her.

I'm not sure the topic has ever been about Marian Veneration, only about the Perpetual Virginity and Assumption or Dormition of her.

My mother gave me my beginning. That's what mothers do.
Before my mother I never was.
The Son of God always was.

Yet Holy Scripture says both the following: Jesus is God and St. Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Therefore, she gave birth to God.

 

[Edial]

1. Jesus is God
2. Jesus is God the Son Incarnate
3. The Son isn't the Father; isn't the Holy Spirit

The theology of Theotokos doesn't suggest that St. Mary was before God, only that she gave birth to God. Given the theology of the Incarnation, this seeming paradox is resolved.

Not quite. The title was invented to DEFEND the Deity of Christ and DEFEND the theology of the Nicene Creed.



Veneration =/= worship. Two different words in Greek, which was the language of the Holy Bible used by the Early Church. The same goes for Latin, if my memory is correct. Thus both ancient and influential theological languages noted a difference.

I might add that Martin Luther himself continued to recite the Marian rosary.

No one has suggested otherwise. Marian veneration, or at least proper veneration, is merely in thanks for her "yes" to God and is the fulfillment of what she herself said: all generations shall call me blessed. Prophetic words.

I'm sorry, but that simply is not one bit true.

That's a Straw Man because that's not what my posts have argued. No one here have suggested people turn to her above and beyond Christ. Please find one post advocating that, and then your objection has merit in this thread. Otherwise, the objection has no validity until it is substantiated.

No proof given. Only your word.

Which is implied by Holy Scripture. Quite heavily, if we want to believe it also teaches Jesus is God Incarnate.

No one made an argument of capitalization being necessary.

Furthermore, I'm not certain that's the actual source text for the actual titles of Mother of God or even Theotokos. The first indisputable use of the term was by St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria and the great hero of Nicaea I.

That claim has yet been substantiated.

I'm not sure the topic has ever been about Marian Veneration, only about the Perpetual Virginity and Assumption or Dormition of her.



Yet Holy Scripture says both the following: Jesus is God and St. Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Therefore, she gave birth to God.

I guess this is losing the context of a discussion and is becoming a back-and-forth.
One thing to add.
You are saying that it is incorrect to say that many in the traditional churches give an undue glory to Mary,
By nationality I am Armenian.
My uncle was an archbishop of the Armenian Apostolic Church. He passed away few years back. Good man. Armenia is the first country that turned Christian in 301AD. I know a lot about Armenian church and people.
I can assure you with full confidence that the majority of Armenians give an undue glory to Mary mainly due to the title Mother of God.

No, I am not going to collect signatures to give you the number.

Thanks,
Ed