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

[MoreCoffee]

I am confident that Mary is ever virgin, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was from the first moment of her conception without the stain of original sin. That's the limit of the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. The first (ever virgin) is shared with all ancient churches as far as I know. The second (dormition/assumption) is held by Catholic and Orthodox christians and others may also hold it. The third (immaculate conception) is help by the Catholic Church and may be believed by others.

Is Mary given undue praise in these doctrines? I do not think so. Each of them is a praise of Jesus Christ far more than of his mother Mary and each is a grace bestowed upon Mary because of the merits of her son Jesus Christ. It isn't as if Mary was or is above creation or exempt from the need of redemption and grace. Clearly Mary is a descendant of Adam & Eve like us all but unlike most of us in that she participated in graces that few have received; Enoch was assumed into heaven so in this Mary is not unique, the 144,000 spoken of in Revelation chapter fourteen are virgins so this is not unique to Mary, the manner of Mary's conception seems to be unique to the blessed Mother of God because she was to be the mother of God and the ark of the new covenant written in flesh rather than upon stone etcetera. The early church fathers knew Mary as the second Eve precisely because they saw her as mother of the new covenant people and like the first Eve Mary was innocent but unlike the first Eve Mary did not sin by disobeying God. Mary said "I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." and no serpent corrupted her heart and mind as had happened to the first Eve.

Reading the early church fathers sets the foundation for all of the Marian dogmas. The scriptures when read in the light of Christ (as every Christian ought to read them) point to Mary as the living ark of the new covenant, the second (the last) Eve, and the mother of the church. So it is no surprise to find the faithful praising Mary today in fulfilment of the word spoken by the Spirit "For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."

The way one reads scripture influences the doctrine one will see taught therein. The apostles set the example for reading the old testament in the light of Christ. Check the way they use scripture, how they seem to see types pointing to anti-type again and again quite unlike a modern exegetical writer might when he uses a grammatico-historical approach in his reading and interpretation. The apostles of Christ didn't use that as their sole approach to holy scripture and nor should we. Go back again and again to the apostles, the gospels, the letters of saints Paul, Peter, James, and John, consult the Apocalypse and see how unlike a modern commentary is the approach of the inspired writers of the new covenant.

So the ancient churches have held Mary in high esteem because the apostles set the example (following the example of Jesus Christ our Lord) of reading the Christian gospel into the old covenant scriptures and thus discovering the signs and symbols God placed in those scriptures to point his people to Christ.

 

[Cappadocious]

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.

You would not be able to know this even if you had the conjoined minds of every Armenian Apostolic on earth.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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

Ed, there is not doubt that Some Christians have indeed given undue glory to Mary; yet it is also apparent that our Confessions show that the Lutheran Reformers also viewed Mary as the Theotokos, and in the Solid Declaration state a belief in the perpetual virginity. The fact that the Church maintained the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord on the same date as the Assumption/Dormation also speaks to the beliefs of these wise and enlightened men.

 

[prodromos]

My mother gave me my beginning. That's what mothers do.

Your mother gave a little bit of her flesh, as did your father, and God took those little bits of flesh which He created, and with them He created you.

Psalm 139:13
For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb​

Here's the thing, in your zeal to defend against what you believe to be inappropriate elevation of Mary, you inadvertently elevate your own mother even higher, claiming in effect that she created you which makes her deity, since only God can create new persons.

Before my mother I never was.
The Son of God always was.

Mothers give birth to persons. They carry those persons in their wombs for 9 months, give birth to those persons, feed and nurture them. It doesn't make any difference whether that person already existed before their conception or not. That is what mothers are and what they do.

 

[prodromos]

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

But can you play "Misirlou"?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ed, there is not doubt that Some Christians have indeed given undue glory to Mary; yet it is also apparent that our Confessions show that the Lutheran Reformers also viewed Mary as the Theotokos, and in the Solid Declaration state a belief in the perpetual virginity. The fact that the Church maintained the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord on the same date as the Assumption/Dormation also speaks to the beliefs of these wise and enlightened men.

Yes, traditionally Lutherans HAVE embraced, accepted and used the TITLE: Mary - the Mother of God (although, evidently like you, I prefer the EOC form of Theotokos). My own pastor uses the term (last in a sermon on Christmas Day).


And theologically, technically, I have no "issues" with the title and its affirmation. But practically, I avoid it. Unless I'm conversing with Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans or fellow Lutherans, I do not use it. THIS THREAD too shows that it is misunderstood, confusing, and often divisive where it need not be. If a joke has to be explained - it's best not to use it. If a term has to be explained - it's best not to use it. ESPECIALLY when we KNOW it is likely to be misunderstood, divisive, problematic. Language should help, not harm.




Now, back to the issue of whether it is TRUE that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance possible and greatest certain of fact possible impacting the eternal salvation of souls that at the second of her death, Mary had not once lovingly share private marital intimacies with her husband.





Sorry.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... If a term has to be explained - it's best not to use it. ESPECIALLY when we KNOW it is likely to be misunderstood, divisive, problematic. Language should help, not harm...

Interesting comment. One wonders how widely it is applied?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

<snip>
The way one reads scripture influences the doctrine one will see taught therein. The apostles set the example for reading the old testament in the light of Christ. Check the way they use scripture, how they seem to see types pointing to anti-type again and again quite unlike a modern exegetical writer might when he uses a grammatico-historical approach in his reading and interpretation. The apostles of Christ didn't use that as their sole approach to holy scripture and nor should we. Go back again and again to the apostles, the gospels, the letters of saints Paul, Peter, James, and John, consult the Apocalypse and see how unlike a modern commentary is the approach of the inspired writers of the new covenant.

So the ancient churches have held Mary in high esteem because the apostles set the example (following the example of Jesus Christ our Lord) of reading the Christian gospel into the old covenant scriptures and thus discovering the signs and symbols God placed in those scriptures to point his people to Christ.

Reading the scripture in the light of Christ is very much different than reading the scripture in the light of Mary. The scripture is in fact to be read and can be read in light of Christ whereas the scripture or two of the first Eve and second Eve are secondary at least to the overall picture. Christ is the typology that is the overall message thru out the complete bible.
I think that the reason there is division between the doctrine of Mariolgy is because of the differing belief that Mary is THE example that leads to Christ (which belief excludes others on the basis of a rule that had been created. Others didn&#8217;t fit the criteria, it was nothing personal.) Whereas those who hold the belief that Mary is respected as Jesus' mother but not the "sign and symbol God placed in scripture to point His people to Christ" (those holding to the belief that Mary is not the way also believe those who do are creating for themselves exclusion to Christ.)
It really does come down to the reading of scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am confident that Mary is ever virgin, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was from the first moment of her conception without the stain of original sin. That's the limit of the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. The first (ever virgin) is shared with all ancient churches as far as I know. The second (dormition/assumption) is held by Catholic and Orthodox christians and others may also hold it. The third (immaculate conception) is help by the Catholic Church and may be believed by others.

Is Mary given undue praise in these doctrines? I do not think so. Each of them is a praise of Jesus Christ far more than of his mother Mary and each is a grace bestowed upon Mary because of the merits of her son Jesus Christ. It isn't as if Mary was or is above creation or exempt from the need of redemption and grace. Clearly Mary is a descendant of Adam & Eve like us all but unlike most of us in that she participated in graces that few have received; Enoch was assumed into heaven so in this Mary is not unique, the 144,000 spoken of in Revelation chapter fourteen are virgins so this is not unique to Mary, the manner of Mary's conception seems to be unique to the blessed Mother of God because she was to be the mother of God and the ark of the new covenant written in flesh rather than upon stone etcetera. The early church fathers knew Mary as the second Eve precisely because they saw her as mother of the new covenant people and like the first Eve Mary was innocent but unlike the first Eve Mary did not sin by disobeying God. Mary said "I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." and no serpent corrupted her heart and mind as had happened to the first Eve.

Reading the early church fathers sets the foundation for all of the Marian dogmas. The scriptures when read in the light of Christ (as every Christian ought to read them) point to Mary as the living ark of the new covenant, the second (the last) Eve, and the mother of the church. So it is no surprise to find the faithful praising Mary today in fulfilment of the word spoken by the Spirit "For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."

The way one reads scripture influences the doctrine one will see taught therein. The apostles set the example for reading the old testament in the light of Christ. Check the way they use scripture, how they seem to see types pointing to anti-type again and again quite unlike a modern exegetical writer might when he uses a grammatico-historical approach in his reading and interpretation. The apostles of Christ didn't use that as their sole approach to holy scripture and nor should we. Go back again and again to the apostles, the gospels, the letters of saints Paul, Peter, James, and John, consult the Apocalypse and see how unlike a modern commentary is the approach of the inspired writers of the new covenant.

So the ancient churches have held Mary in high esteem because the apostles set the example (following the example of Jesus Christ our Lord) of reading the Christian gospel into the old covenant scriptures and thus discovering the signs and symbols God placed in those scriptures to point his people to Christ.

Reading the scripture in the light of Christ is very much different than reading the scripture in the light of Mary. The scripture is in fact to be read and can be read in light of Christ whereas the scripture or two of the first Eve and second Eve are secondary at least to the overall picture. Christ is the typology that is the overall message thru out the complete bible.

I think that the reason there is division between the doctrine of Mariolgy is because of the differing belief that Mary is THE example that leads to Christ (which belief excludes others on the basis of a rule that had been created. Others didn’t fit the criteria, it was nothing personal.) Whereas those who hold the belief that Mary is respected as Jesus' mother but not the "sign and symbol God placed in scripture to point His people to Christ" (those holding to the belief that Mary is not the way also believe those who do are creating for themselves exclusion to Christ.)

It really does come down to the reading of scripture.

I imagine that you snipped my post to show the blue text only for brevity's sake and I approve of doing that sort of thing when our reply is a reply to the text left after the snipping and not to the text that was snipped. But the reply shown above does seem to be replying to the snipped text as much as to the blue text and that makes the snipping unhelpful. So, to help the reader, I've quoted the whole post to which you replied. The logic going from apostolic uses of holy scripture to patristic uses and from these to the Marian dogmas is very helpful. Leaving it out by snipping it away is unhelpful. Even if you disagree and even if the early church fathers have no significance for the system of doctrine supported by a denomination it remains a fact that the early church saw Mary as the new eve, mother of the church, mother of God, eternally virgin, pure, and assumed by God into heaven.

 

[Kristos]

Let's remember that the title Theotokos was at the center of a Christological controversy, not a Marian controversy. I think if we going to not use the term or even deny it (or it's intent) then we are really messing with our Christology - not our Mariology. Christology is doctrinal, it matters.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let's remember that the title Theotokos was at the center of a Christological controversy, not a Marian controversy. I think if we going to not use the term or even deny it (or it's intent) then we are really messing with our Christology - not our Mariology. Christology is doctrinal, it matters.

The de fide dogmas we're here discussing are

1) The PERPETUAL virginity of MARY, as dogma.
2) The Assumption of MARY, as dogma.


Blessings to you and yours....


- Josiah





.

 

[Kristos]

The de fide dogmas we're here discussing are

1) The PERPETUAL virginity of MARY, as dogma.
2) The Assumption of MARY, as dogma.


Blessings to you and yours....


- Josiah





.

Then you were off topic.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Let's remember that the title Theotokos was at the center of a Christological controversy, not a Marian controversy. I think if we going to not use the term or even deny it (or it's intent) then we are really messing with our Christology - not our Mariology. Christology is doctrinal, it matters.

As well The Council of Ephesus points out

 

[Edial]

Your mother gave a little bit of her flesh, as did your father, and God took those little bits of flesh which He created, and with them He created you.

Psalm 139:13
For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb​

Here's the thing, in your zeal to defend against what you believe to be inappropriate elevation of Mary, you inadvertently elevate your own mother even higher, claiming in effect that she created you which makes her deity, since only God can create new persons.

Not at all.
And you are correct concerning the verse.
What I am doing is applying this verse concerning mothers.
This is what Eve said - GE 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

Mothers give birth to persons. They carry those persons in their wombs for 9 months, give birth to those persons, feed and nurture them. It doesn't make any difference whether that person already existed before their conception or not. That is what mothers are and what they do.

Yet this is your personal definition.
There were no examples of mothers giving birth to any pre-existing people or beings.
Eve gave a beginning to men. There were no men before Eve. So a mother gives a beginning to a child. Mary was a human woman.
The Bible was careful not to call her a mother of God. God has no mother.
Why should we say Mother of God?
Human Jesus (who is also God) had a mother Mary.
We should be careful not to run ahead of the Bible ... that's the way I see this.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

I am confident that Mary is ever virgin, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and that she was from the first moment of her conception without the stain of original sin. That's the limit of the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. The first (ever virgin) is shared with all ancient churches as far as I know. The second (dormition/assumption) is held by Catholic and Orthodox christians and others may also hold it. The third (immaculate conception) is help by the Catholic Church and may be believed by others.

Is Mary given undue praise in these doctrines? I do not think so. Each of them is a praise of Jesus Christ far more than of his mother Mary and each is a grace bestowed upon Mary because of the merits of her son Jesus Christ. It isn't as if Mary was or is above creation or exempt from the need of redemption and grace. Clearly Mary is a descendant of Adam & Eve like us all but unlike most of us in that she participated in graces that few have received; Enoch was assumed into heaven so in this Mary is not unique, the 144,000 spoken of in Revelation chapter fourteen are virgins so this is not unique to Mary, the manner of Mary's conception seems to be unique to the blessed Mother of God because she was to be the mother of God and the ark of the new covenant written in flesh rather than upon stone etcetera. The early church fathers knew Mary as the second Eve precisely because they saw her as mother of the new covenant people and like the first Eve Mary was innocent but unlike the first Eve Mary did not sin by disobeying God. Mary said "I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." and no serpent corrupted her heart and mind as had happened to the first Eve.

Reading the early church fathers sets the foundation for all of the Marian dogmas. The scriptures when read in the light of Christ (as every Christian ought to read them) point to Mary as the living ark of the new covenant, the second (the last) Eve, and the mother of the church. So it is no surprise to find the faithful praising Mary today in fulfilment of the word spoken by the Spirit "For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."

The way one reads scripture influences the doctrine one will see taught therein. The apostles set the example for reading the old testament in the light of Christ. Check the way they use scripture, how they seem to see types pointing to anti-type again and again quite unlike a modern exegetical writer might when he uses a grammatico-historical approach in his reading and interpretation. The apostles of Christ didn't use that as their sole approach to holy scripture and nor should we. Go back again and again to the apostles, the gospels, the letters of saints Paul, Peter, James, and John, consult the Apocalypse and see how unlike a modern commentary is the approach of the inspired writers of the new covenant.

So the ancient churches have held Mary in high esteem because the apostles set the example (following the example of Jesus Christ our Lord) of reading the Christian gospel into the old covenant scriptures and thus discovering the signs and symbols God placed in those scriptures to point his people to Christ.

But Mary is in high esteem in my view as well.

I respect her in the light of the Scriptures.
You do so in the light of the Traditions.
I have no problem with Traditions, since I assume Church Traditions need to be corresponded to the Scriptures.

Baptists and Pentecostals and Calvinists and others also have their own Traditions. When I say traditions I mean that all denominations and faith groups have their own.

1. Great amount of church traditions are Scriptural.
2. Some are a bit of a stretch.
3. And yet some others are outside of the Scriptures.

Every traditional doctrine fits in either of the points.
That is why denominations do not agree with each other concerning some traditional doctrines thinking that my view is more correct than yours.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[PaladinValer]

Yet this is your personal definition.

His?

This is the Nicene Creed.

There were no examples of mothers giving birth to any pre-existing people or beings.

Straw Man, and my own posts make it very clear what the Traditional theology we are defending is actually about.

Eve gave a beginning to men. There were no men before Eve. So a mother gives a beginning to a child. Mary was a human woman.

Straw Man argument.

The Bible was careful not to call her a mother of God. God has no mother.
Why should we say Mother of God?
Human Jesus (who is also God) had a mother Mary.

Nestorianism, pure and simple. Hypostatic Union as per the Creed and the Definition, both now given universal assent by even the Oriental Orthodox since their historic agreement with my church on the issue just last year.

Jesus the Man is not a separate person from Jesus the God. St. Mary didn't just give birth to half of Jesus; she have birth to all of Him. That's the Holy Bible.

We should be careful not to run ahead of the Bible ... that's the way I see this.

My reply is the Holy Bible according to Ephesus and Martin Luther.

 

[Edial]

You would not be able to know this even if you had the conjoined minds of every Armenian Apostolic on earth.

That is true.

 

[Edial]

Ed, there is not doubt that Some Christians have indeed given undue glory to Mary; yet it is also apparent that our Confessions show that the Lutheran Reformers also viewed Mary as the Theotokos, and in the Solid Declaration state a belief in the perpetual virginity. The fact that the Church maintained the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord on the same date as the Assumption/Dormation also speaks to the beliefs of these wise and enlightened men.

And that is fine.
I call Mary mother of our Lord. Lord is a title, God is a Being.
Some from among our Lutheran brethren even say that when Jesus died - God died.
And one Pastor (LCMS) went into a rabbit hole and came up that during Christ's death there were only 2 persons of Trinity left ... because God died.

God died?? Are we completely losing our minds?

And there is a Protestant hymn, very popular, where they say "what a love it is that God has died for me" (paraphrase).
God DIED? :o

You see what I mean?

God is God and we are not.

 

[Edial]

Interesting comment. One wonders how widely it is applied?

What do you mean?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. Yes, this forum is about TRADITIONAL theology, but OBVIOUSLY there is not just one Tradition - there are many, and they are at times different. In this forum, we are embracing ALL these various Traditions

2. It is ONE Tradition that it is DE FIDE DOGMA that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. It is NOT Tradition for most denominations. I know of NONE that officially declares that she DID have loving, personal, private, sharing of marital intimacies at least once in her lifetime, but MANY Traditions are silent on this topic (at least dogmatically).

3. It is ONE Tradition that it is DE FIDE DOGMA that Mary was Assumed, body and soul, into heaven at the moment of her death (or was it undeath) - I think declared so by one denomination in 1950 (Perhaps I'm in error there). But it in other Traditions, there is silence on that point (at least dogmatically) and in still others, a pious embrace but not Dogma.



Sorry....





.