What, if anything, is wrong with this picture?

[Fervent]

Well I see that Ignatius wrote about the incarnation of Christ. What did he say about Mary in that?

Where does he indicate that what he wrote is an exhaustive doctrinal statement?

 

[Servus]

Where does he indicate that what he wrote is an exhaustive doctrinal statement?

Where does he indicate what he wrote is an incomplete summary? I'm sorry but the idea why no one said anything about Mary outside of the gospels for centuries is because they didn't have enough ink, just isn't a very persuasive argument in my opinion.

 

[Fervent]

Where does he indicate what he wrote is an incomplete summary? I'm sorry but the idea why no one said anything about Mary outside of the gospels for centuries is because they didn't have enough ink, just isn't a very persuasive argument in my opinion.

You sure are a fan of red herrings. No where did I say it was because they didn't have enough ink, but that the absence of commentary regarding Marian beliefs is easily explained by there existing no controversy regarding them in the early church. You attempted to bring in Ignatius' writings on the incarnation as if the absence there is significant, which would only be the case if what he wrote were intended as an exhaustive doctrinal statement. Which is up to you to demonstrate.

 

[FenderTL5]

For that to follow it means all early church writing only addressed controversy. Is that really the case? Mary's status as it relates to Christology is scriptural and agreed upon by virtually all of Christianity. It's that which is not found in scripture or in any Christian literature until the 4th century, that's being questioned.

What are you looking for?
The circumstances of the Dormition of the Mother of God were known in the Orthodox Church from apostolic times. Already in the first century, the Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her “Falling-Asleep.”
St. Dionysius was seized and beheaded by Domitian in th year 96.
In the second century, the account of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven is found in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis.

 

[Servus]

You sure are a fan of red herrings. No where did I say it was because they didn't have enough ink,

Oh yes I'm full of clever tactics. Or more likely I just misunderstood "it doesn't seem likely that ink would be spilled" at the time.

but that the absence of commentary regarding Marian beliefs is easily explained by there existing no controversy regarding them in the early church. You attempted to bring in Ignatius' writings on the incarnation as if the absence there is significant, which would only be the case if what he wrote were intended as an exhaustive doctrinal statement. Which is up to you to demonste.

I disagree that the epistles written by the early church fathers were only in regard to controversy. And you'll have to explain what qualifies as an exhaustive doctrinal statement from any early church father, and why it would have to be exhaustive to say one single thing about the church having Marian beliefs and practices prior to the 4th century. I think that it's far more likely that it simply was not something the early church was into, considering there's not an iota of evidence whatsoever that they were.

 

[Servus]

What are you looking for?
The circumstances of the Dormition of the Mother of God were known in the Orthodox Church from apostolic times. Already in the first century, the Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her “Falling-Asleep.”
St. Dionysius was seized and beheaded by Domitian in th year 96.
In the second century, the account of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven is found in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis.

I'm looking for anything in the epistles of the early church fathers which indicates that Marian beliefs and practices that became apparent in the fourth century going forward, existed before the fourth century.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm looking for anything in the epistles of the early church fathers which indicates that Marian beliefs and practices that became apparent in the fourth century going forward, existed before the fourth century.

Beyond what I've already posted;
There's evidence of the Orthodox Dormition being celebrated in the Church in Jerusalem as early as the 1st century, although it was not added to the church-wide liturgical calendar until later.

The accounts, including those from the 1st and 2nd century, are consistent with the Ante-Nicene Fathers The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary. (linkage to CCEL ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ageby Philip Schaff)

 

[Fervent]

Oh yes I'm full of clever tactics. Or more likely I just misunderstood "it doesn't seem likely that ink would be spilled" at the time.

I disagree that the epistles written by the early church fathers were only in regard to controversy. And you'll have to explain what qualifies as an exhaustive doctrinal statement from any early church father, and why it would have to be exhaustive to say one single thing about the church having Marian beliefs and practices prior to the 4th century. I think that it's far more likely that it simply was not something the early church was into, considering there's not an iota of evidence whatsoever that they were.

Things that aren't controversial don't warrant attention even today where written works are completed with little cost and literacy is common. Instruction in the faith was far more liturgical and artistic, with written instruction being reserved for questions and controversies. The relative silence doesn't imply absence, unless what was written approximates an exhaustive compendium of Christian practice at the time which it doesn't. An argument from silence is only compelling if there's a reason we would suspect the kind of evidence we're looking for, and there's little reason to expect comprehensive treatments of Christian faith and practice in writing from the early church. On the other hand, if Marian doctrine was aberant from early faith and practice we would expect significant opposition to those who first introduce it but what we find is that it comes from those who are the most orthodox and they speak of it as a well established tradition.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm looking for anything in the epistles of the early church fathers which indicates that Marian beliefs and practices that became apparent in the fourth century going forward, existed before the fourth century.

Arguments for the "Ever Virgin" are found in the following:
Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III ch 22.4 [120-180 AD]
.Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John book 1 ch 6 (185-254 ad)
For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus,
Origen Commentary on Matthew book 7 ch 34 (185-254)
Gregory Thaumaturgus Four Homilies 4th homily (213-275ad)

We went through this same exercise with someone else in one of the bigger, eventually closed threads.

The claim that there's no Marian references until the 4th century is simply not true. They are limited but present.
otoh, even the canon of Scripture wasn't fully defined until the 4th century. You accept that, right? Or do you reject the Canon because it wasn't enumerated prior to the 4th century?

I tend to think persecution played a role.
It was 313 with the Edict of Milan that religious freedom was declared and the persecution officially ended in the Roman Empire.
Afterwhich, you see a more comprehensive view of the Faith documented.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm looking for anything ..before the fourth century.

more 3rd Century into early 4th

Gregory Thaumaturgus Four Homilies 4th homily (213-275ad)
But Thou, being born of the Virgin Mary, as Thou didst will, and as Thou alone dost know, didst not do away with her virginity; but Thou didst keep it, and didst simply gift her with the name of mother: and neither did her virginity preclude Thy birth, nor did Thy birth injure her virginity. But these two things, so utterly opposite--bearing and virginity--harmonized with one intent; for such a thing abides, possible with Thee, the Framer of nature.

Peter of Alexandria Fragments 5 par 7 (260-311ad)
the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, being in the end of the world born according to the flesh of our holy and glorious lady, Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin, and, of a truth, of Mary the Mother of God; and being seen upon earth, and having true and real converse as man with men, who were of the same substance with Him

Athanasius Discourse 2 Against the Arians par 70 (296-373 ad)
Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh(2) of Mary Ever-Virgin(3); for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.

Liturgy of James 9 (300 ad)
Thou who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who didst submit for our salvation to become flesh of the holy Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary

 

[Servus]

Things that aren't controversial don't warrant attention even today where written works are completed with little cost and literacy is common. Instruction in the faith was far more liturgical and artistic, with written instruction being reserved for questions and controversies. The relative silence doesn't imply absence, unless what was written approximates an exhaustive compendium of Christian practice at the time which it doesn't. An argument from silence is only compelling if there's a reason we would suspect the kind of evidence we're looking for, and there's little reason to expect comprehensive treatments of Christian faith and practice in writing from the early church. On the other hand, if Marian doctrine was aberant from early faith and practice we would expect significant opposition to those who first introduce it but what we find is that it comes from those who are the most orthodox and they speak of it as a well established tradition.

It's ironic that after all that, stuff written about Mary by the early church gets posted. But I already knew they wrote out prayers, homilies and benedictions. Basically poetry.

 

[FenderTL5]

..I already knew they wrote out prayers, homilies and benedictions. Basically poetry.

a benediction is a closing prayer. Prayers are.. well prayers and yes prayers in the ancient Church are often poetic because they are sung/chanted. Much the same as the Psalms are sung/chanted prayers. This is still the case in the Orthodox Church.
Homilies are sermons.

 

[John Helpher]

What are your thoughts on this?

What even is the point of trying to argue that she's the mother of God? Like, she can send God to bed without desert? When someone said to Jesus, "Blessed are the breasts which gave you suck" Jesus rejoined, "Rather, blessed are those who hear my words and do them." I think that makes it pretty clear.

These kinds of superstitions are rife in all of Christianity. Some people say they have the correct name of God. Some people say you don't really need the water baptism, but then argue that you really do need it, while some people say they have the correct day to worship, and some people say they have the mother of God. They all have their various little religious hang-ups, but in every case, the one thing they'll have in common is an aversion to obedience to the teachings of Jesus.

 

[concretecamper]

You have no authority to command me anything. My opinion is on the same level as yours. And you are no judge of what is true or false, here.

You worship the Bible, a book. That doesn't seem like what a Christian should do.

 

[Servus]

You worship the Bible, a book. That doesn't seem like what a Christian should do.

Does he kneel and pray to the bible?

 

[concretecamper]

Does he kneel and pray to the bible?

Does he?

 

[Servus]

Does he?

You said he worships the Bible, so I'm asking you for the details of how he worships it.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Is Mary the Mother of God?

A: Yes.
B: No."

Answer is yes; for if Jesus is truly God then Blessed Mary is his mother and consequently Blessed Mary is the mother of God. And yes, it is a step towards Nestorian heresy to deny that Blessed Mary is the mother of God.

---

Paragraph 6. MARY - MOTHER OF CHRIST, MOTHER OF THE CHURCH

963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honoured as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer.... She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' ... since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."500 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."501

I. MARY'S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH

Wholly united with her Son . . .

964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."503​

965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."504 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."505

. . . also in 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."506 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.507​

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus)508 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Saviour's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."509

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 fulfilment 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."510

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."511 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."512

II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."513 The Church rightly honours "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."514 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.515

III. MARY - ESCHATOLOGICAL ICON OF THE CHURCH

972 After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own "pilgrimage of faith," and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, "in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity," "in the communion of all the saints,"516 The Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother.

In the meantime the Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God.517

IN BRIEF

973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was al ready collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Saviour and head of the Mystical Body.

974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.

975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG # 15).

500 LG 53; cf. St. Augustine, De virg. 6: PL 40,399.
501 Paul VI, Discourse, November 21,1964.
502 LG 57.
503 LG 58; cf. Jn 19:26-27.
504 LG 69.
505 LG 59.
506 LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16.
507 Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.
508 LG 53; 63.
509 LG 61.
510 LG 62.
511 LG 60.
512 LG 62.
513 Lk 1:48; Paul VI, MC 56.
514 LG 66.
515 Cf. Paul VI, MC 42; SC 103.
516 LG 69.
517 LG 68; Cf. 2 Pet 3 10.

 

[trophy33]

You worship the Bible, a book. That doesn't seem like what a Christian should do.

What are you talking about?

 

[trophy33]

The protestant view of the incarnation tends to be quite impoverished, a mere footnote that needs to be agreed with rather than the radical event that it was.

Having "just" Jesus is not being poor. Focus "just" on Jesus is neither. Etc. Its actually guess what - what apostles did and taught.

You don't make requests and petitions to fellow Christians for them to lift up to God? You don't seem to understand what Orthodox and Catholics are doing when they pray to the saints.

To departed ones? NO. And neither did first Christians and apostles. Its a totally foreign concept to Christianity, added later.

Again, it seems to me you're making an unfair caricature of Catholic practice rather than an informed criticism.

Again, just watch some documentary about Catholics in South America, for example. Those are very clear examples. But this practice is not so uncommon even in developed countries. People have home-made shrines, pray to Mary, kneel before her statues etc.

Renaming this practice to be something else than worship or idolatry is not solving the problem of what is visibly going on.