Mary - Christian Prototype

[BobRyan]

You are correct, but it is assumed by Protestants in other texts that Mary's soul is in the same place that all the saints go to when they die on earth.

Agreed.

But, then Catholics don't believe the souls of all saints go to heaven immediately at death so they have to make Mary out special.

Catholics have at least three categories (possibly more).
1.Those who die and go directly to hell
2.Those who die and go to purgatory..
3. Saints who die and go directly to heaven.

The first 2 are generally not called saints by Catholics as far as I know

 

[Philip_B]

Catholics have at least three categories (possibly more).
1.Those who die and go directly to hell
2.Those who die and go to purgatory..
3. Saints who die and go directly to heaven.

The first 2 are generally not called saints by Catholics as far as I know

Be aware that the RCC and the EOC have different position on this especially when it comes to Mary, Mother of the Lord. I think OOC is possibly the same as the EOC, and the Anglicans a probably all over the shop, but I think numbers of us are possibly more comfortable with the EOC that the RCC view, however we have no specific statement that I am aware of.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I have no idea what this post is about. It seems to be determined to say that I am wrong. I am not a sola scriptura kind of person, and certainly not a solo scriptura kind of person, however I would see, and do see scripture as the foundation on which we believe.

You made a statement that I took exception to. You responded to it multiple times so don't ask me to repeat your initial statement that I disagree with. I provided arguments against, with scripture. You replied with a different argument using scripture to support a belief. Now you say you don't follow Sola Scriptura. Likewise other posts have been made in this thread by people that quote scripture and yet don't follow Sola Scriptura. That is your faith. I will never convince you to change that. Just acknowledge that your authority is not scripture; you will accept as unquestionable true what is not in scripture.

As this thread is in GT there are those that adhere to Sola Scriptura and those that don't. In the end this thread pits those that follow Sola Scriptura vs. those that don't because much that is believed about Mary is not in scripture. It is mostly Protestants that follow Sola Scriptura. Catholics along with others don't. As such, I made the generalization that this thread is a Protestants vs. Catholics issue.

You started this thread thinking you could unite a divided Church around your thoughts on Mary. I say along with other Sola Scriptura followers that the only way you could do this is if your thoughts/OP were supported/defended with scripture. You now state no intent for such. And you wonder why I question your last sentence in the OP to be contentious.

How is it that this woman who means so much in the outworking of our salvation could be the cause of so much derision and division within the body of Christ - the Church?

Now, it should be obvious that I have no problem contributing in contentious situations. As I have stated, I think being challenged and defending what you believe is the best way to learn for sure what you believe. For me I look to scripture for every important doctrine I hold. I will never quote Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15 and think I must believe all that churches come up with.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

In fact there is one event where someone shouts out to Christ "BLESSED is the woman who nursed you" specifically pointing to her biological role-- and how "instructive" that Jesus' response begins with "ON the CONTRARY.."

#thingsjesusdidntsay

"On the contrary" is not an accurate translation of "menoun" (Μενοῦν) , which is more accurately rendered "truly indeed." The NKJV, which is a very high quality translation, based on very high quality manuscrip scholarship reflecting the best possible balance of textual criticism and liturgical tradition, and which is used for the NT portion of the Orthodox Study Bible, renders this passage as

"But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

This is, clearly, in context, the right reading.

Only a tiny minority of Bible translations, excluding the KJV, the NIV, the ASB, the NASB, and others, render that passage as "on the contrary," and indeed, such a reading makes no sense at all, because it would directly contradict Luke 1.

St. Luke would not write, in chapter 1, the Theotokos praising God that "all generations will call me blessed," and then ten chapters later, have God basically say, "Nope, she was wrong, she is not blessed."

Indeed, there is no criticism of St. Mary anywhere in the Gospel of Luke, or indeed anywhere else in the Gospels.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Be aware that the RCC and the EOC have different position on this especially when it comes to Mary, Mother of the Lord. I think OOC is possibly the same as the EOC, and the Anglicans a probably all over the shop, but I think numbers of us are possibly more comfortable with the EOC that the RCC view, however we have no specific statement that I am aware of.

The Orthodox view is more subtle, nuanced and indeed frightening than the RCC or Protestant views. See The State of the Soul After Death by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

However, anyone who makes it to Heaven is a saint. Once we have established their sainthood, we have one last funeral for them, and pray for them one last time; from that moment they will only be prayed to, having been glorified and having become sons of God by adoption.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

she should be revered with shrines with pilgrimage

All siamts are worthy of veneration, of shrines and pilgrimage. This is because they have won the fight and become deified, made by grace what God is by nature. Venerating the saints is a way of worshipping God.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

What an edifying post. You might as well just write, I am right. I try and quote scripture as much as possible, but you avoid it.

I try to avoid quoting scripture wherever possible in debates, for reasons I have stated elsewhere (I reject sola scriptura, scripture is sacred, the over-quotation of scripture outside of the Church removes it from its proper sacramental context).

All that really matters is the doctrine and practice of the Orthodox Church, since scripture is in the interpretation, not the reading.

However, in this case, I can assure you that sacred, canonical scripture does exist (in another book in the Bible) in defense of my position. My goal is to merely limit the number of verses being discussed in this debate; my own preference would be we avoid quoting it altogether in the course of this debate, but instead read it privately, and allude to the chapters we have read to, and quote relevant commentaries. In this manner, we could protect the holy words inspired of God from being read out of context or from accidental profanation.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Jesus is our Prototype >
"For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (in 1 Corinthians 2:2)

"My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you," (Galatians 4:19)

So, God's attention is to forming His own Son in each child of God, as our new inner Person.

This is true, and insofar as that happened first and foremost with St. Mary, she also becomes a prototype.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

God help us if Satan, the angel fallen from heaven can read our thoughts.

Indeed so, because there is a very substantial body of Scriptural and Patriatic evidence to suggest the devil can read our thoughts, and indeed actively inserts himself into our internal mental processes.

So yes, Lord have Mercy. Kyrie Eleison.

I am entirely certain the devil has not only the abilkty to read our thoughts, but also to insert ideas directly into our minds. Read/write access.

The disciplines of Orthodox monasticism are largely focused on training to shut the devil out, to deny him this ability, but I myself am a weak layman living in the world and of the world, so all I do is pray for divine mercy.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The message has been communicated. It is understood what I call a dead saint. A legalistic avoids the question for semantics. IDC.

I am not legalistic. I simply cannot answer a question when answering it would imply a belief that the choir of Saints of the Church Triumphant are dead.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So you say it better to follow a few verses in scripture that speak of Mary, over the majority of the New Testament that speaks of Jesus and gives explicit directions on how Christians are to live.

No.

I am saying that St. Mary provides us an example for how to live like Jesus. All of the saints provide us with examples of living like Jesus, of being like Jesus, of being deified.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Sorry, there is no time limit on Sola Scriptura. And, just because the early reformers concentrated on the major contentions with their churches, doesn't mean they cleared up all the dogma that lacks scriptural support. Today, Mariology in the Protestant churches is much diminished, as the OP proves.

If the early Church believed something was important, or not important, we are obliged to follow its precedent. There can be no rupture with the early Church.

This is why I reject all innovations in doctrine.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Firstly, Gabriel is an angel, not a person and I am of the opinion that angels serve men.

Angels are persons. Of this there can be no scriptural doubt.

They are not humans, but they are persons.

Humanity is not a prerequisite for personhood (this is why we call God the Father and the Holy Spirit persons, when they are purely divine and spiritual beings and not human; their personhood furthermore is not derived from or dependent on their consubstantiality with the Incarnate Logos).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

We must, sounds like you make it a command. Show me where in scripture it was so commanded.

Luke 1

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Do you understand the difference between rather and also?

Yes. I also understand the difference between rather and μενοῦν.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I guess you think everyone in heaven have the same abilities as God because they are both in heaven.

They have the ability to participate in the uncreated energies of God. Being creatures, they cannot even comprehend His essence, but being glorified and deified creatures, having been made gods according to the promise, they can participate in His energies, which include blessing the faithful with their grace.

This participation extends even to their glorified relics, which is why their bodies, awaiting resurrection, are filled with divine energy and have miraculous abilities. Many have been healed through the sacred relics of the Saints. For example, the life-giving myrhh which streams from the radiant bones of many of the saints.

I myself once kissed the beautiful skull of St. Joseph the Hesychast and am increasingly aware of a connection between him and myself, leading me closer to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Angels are persons. Of this there can be no scriptural doubt.

They are not humans, but they are persons.

Humanity is not a prerequisite for personhood (this is why we call God the Father and the Holy Spirit persons, when they are purely divine and spiritual beings and not human; their personhood furthermore is not derived from or dependent on their consubstantiality with the Incarnate Logos).

More legalism to avoid the point of the argument, that men are above angels. This you argue not. Instead you wish to argue the definition of person. Understand the Bible never calls angels or God to be a person.

A person is defined as a human being. Now to make it easier to grasp the concept of the Trinity people that try to explain it use this concept of one God, three persons. Never is it implied that God is a person though. And never is it argued that angels are persons, except by you.

More assertion of what scripture says, without listing any scripture.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

If the early Church believed something was important, or not important, we are obliged to follow its precedent. There can be no rupture with the early Church.

This is why I reject all innovations in doctrine.

And so you must reject all the Mary dogma of the RCC post reformation. Further you must reject all dogma that has split the Church into so many different divisions since some point in time.

So what year was all doctrine set in stone as contained by the early church?

As far as "we are obliged to follow its precedent", that use of we does not include those that follow Sola Scriptura. We are obliged to follow scripture, even when it disagrees with the RCC or even Martin Luther. Get that?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

More legalism to avoid the point of the argument, that men are above angels.

How is this in any sense legalism?

Nowhere does the Bible say that personhood and humanity are synonymous.

The Latin word personam, from the Greek πρόσωπον has the sense of meaning "visage", face," "countenance," "mask" or "personality."

In the Greek Septuagint, God is explicitly described as having a πρόσωπον, in the Priestly Blessing found in the 6th chapter of Numbers.

Thus, God the Father is a Person according to the Holy Bible (particularly since the Hebrew word translated as πρόσωπον has essentially the same meaning).

In like manner, several verses describe the faces or countenances of Angels. Using πρόσωπον in the LXX.

Anything with a rational visage is a person.

Whereas not all persons are human beings. Most I believe are spiritual beings (there is some reason to suspect that angels and fallen angels substantially outnumber humans).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

And so you must reject all the Mary dogma of the RCC post reformation.

I do.

Specifically, I reject the Immaculate Conception, which is based on the Augustinian idea of original sin (the Orthodox instead adhere to the ancestral sin model of St. John Cassian, in which sin is not transmitted as a result of coition, so you could say from an Orthodox perspective that in a sense, all conceptions are immaculate).

I also reject the idea, although it is not clear if this is actually the dogma Pope Pius XII intended to pronounce ex cathedra in 1952 or merely a misinterpretation of it, since the dogmatic definition was so vague (indeed, it seems almost intentionally vague to the point of coyness on this issue) that St. Mary did not die before being assumed bodily into Heaven, but was rather assumed bodily while still alive. That account clashes with the traditional account of her Dormition, in which she did die in Ephesus, before being (IIRC) translated miraculously to Jerusalem and then being assumed bodily.