Mariolatry?

[jas3]

That’s not the biblical definition of prayer. The Greek word parakaleō means

1. to call to one's side, call for, summon
2. to address, speak to, (call to, call upon), which may be done in the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.
a. to admonish, exhort
b. to beg, entreat, beseech

In all fairness, παρακαλέω is not the only word rendered as "pray" in English, and even in the KJV it's usually rendered "beseech" or "exhort." In the context of praying to God, the word is εύχομαι or προσεύχομαι, which in their secular usage mean "wish."

That said, there are various instances of requests for intercession via prayer (e.g. Colossians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:25, 2 Thessalonians 3:1, Hebrews 13:18) which is the type of beseeching/praying that is being done to the saints. In particular, this is evidenced in 1 Tim. 2:1:

I exhort (παρακαλῶ) therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers (προσευχάς), intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men

All of this is to say that even if there is a particular kind of prayer reserved for God, it is still not improper in English to say one "prays" or beseeches the intercessory prayer of a saint.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is zero mention of her life, death or certainly not resurrection. That is Christ and Christ alone.

This is in error, in that the Gospel and the New Testament plainly affirms that everyone is resurrected on the dread day of judgement, even those who are damned, which obviously our most glorious lady Theotokos is not, since she obeyed God and gave birth to Him in the person of the Logos, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, who is God Incarnate.

The early church affirmed the doctrine of the Dormition, but it is recorded in the Patristic texts rather than in Scripture, probably because by the fourth century there were no surviving texts by the Apostles describing the incident.

The Church Fathers set the standard for the New Testament very high - only documents of verifiable apostolic provenance could be considered for inclusion in the New Testament, which had the effect of excluding several works which were nonetheless regarded as useful for purposes of catechesis and which many had campaigned for inclusion in the New Testament, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. But because it was not written by an Apostle but rather by a second generation Christian, it was ultimately excluded.

Indeed we very nearly had a narrower 22 book New Testament, which we see in the original Peshitta. Later on, the books not translated, which included 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation, were added by the Syriac Orthodox (and thus spread to the Maronite Catholics as well, who separated from the Syriac Orthodox in a schism, probably over the issue of Monothelitism, which the Syriac Orthodox rejected), from the translation of the New Testament by St. Thomas of Harqel (the Harkleian Bible).

It was St. Athanasius the Pope of Alexandria who ensured these disputed books were included, and thus our 27 book canon is based on his work, which in turn was adopted by the Archbishop of Rome (who would not be called Pope until another 150 years or s0), and by the Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox, because the Syriac Orthodox were in very close communion with the Coptic Orthodox following the schism resulting from the interference of the crypto-Nestorian Ibas at the Council of Chalcedon. Probably the last holdouts on the 22 book canon were the Antiochians, because of a historic rivalry between the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, which later disappeared.

At any rate, since St. Athanasius gave us the 27 book canon, it stands to follow that we ought to adhere to his doctrine and that of Pope St. Cyril the Great, his illustrious successor, who was instrumental along with his Roman counterpart St. Celestine in deposing Pelagius and Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus in 433 AD. Indeed Pelagianism and Nestorianism were conceptually related; Nestorianism was understood by Archbishop Celestine as being a Christological Pelagianism.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This is in error, in that the Gospel and the New Testament plainly affirms that everyone is resurrected on the dread day of judgement, even those who are damned, which obviously our most glorious lady Theotokos is not, since she obeyed God and gave birth to Him in the person of the Logos, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, who is God Incarnate.

Please show in the New Testament where it plainly states that your glorious lady is not going to be resurrected on judgement day and judged?

That is our difference your beliefs and mine separate at Holy Scripture.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We shouldn't get confused over the terms we're using. When we speak here of the "dead" among the saints we're talking not of the destiny of their spirits, but rather, of the fate of their bodies.

We all die, even though Jesus said, cryptically, that we shall "never die." Jesus was speaking of the eternal spirit the saints have following redemption--not of the indestructability of the human spirit, which all have, but of the sense that Eternal Life is, by definition, an existence alongside of Jesus, who has a quality of life that is both eternal and virtuous.

So praying to the saints whose bodies have "died" is forbidden, based on the OT principle in law that contact with those passed on should not be communicated with. There is a chasm separating the deceased from the current mortals who are still living.

Not contacting but consulting. The verses specifically forbid consulting or seeking council not praying.

 

[The Liturgist]

Please show in the New Testament where it plainly states that your glorious lady is not going to be resurrected on judgement day and judged?

That is our difference your beliefs and mine separate at Holy Scripture.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not my Glorious Lady, but yours as well. Antidicomarianism (refusal to venerate the Theotokos) was regarded as a theological error in the fourth century, along with Collyridianism (Mariolatry), as we know from the Panarion of St. Epiphanios.

At any rate, you appeared to claim that she is not resurrected, whereas my statement is that even if you reject the doctrine of the Dormition, which I can understand even though I disagree with it, the idea that anyone is not resurrected is contrary to the New Testament. Furthermore, some people have already been accounted worthy, as we see in the case of the martyrs of the the New Testament, and the Good Thief, and obviously this applies to the Theotokos as well, for she gave birth to God.

The importance of her affirmative choice in giving birth to God and being His human mother cannot be overstated, because no other human, not even Moses, has had as intimate a relationship with Our Lord (and in the case of Moses, given the anthropic aspects of God when He interacted with him, it seems reasonable to assume that He was largely interacting with the Logos, although the Burning Bush and the column of smoke and pillar of fire was obviously the Holy Spirit, since we see the Holy Spirit appear in the same manner on Whitsunday.

 

[RandyPNW]

Not contacting but consulting. The verses specifically forbid consulting or seeking council not praying.

We're getting into a disturbing pocket of definition problems. Prayer, I'm explaining, is communication--not just consultation. It is prayer to God, or communication with beings beyond our realm, which is necromancy. To consult with them, or simply to talk to them, is a form of necromancy.

 

[The Liturgist]

At any rate this entire thread is a trainwreck, because it consists of a false accusation that all Roman Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is categorically untrue, and then furthermore extends that to the Orthodox, where I don’t think any Orthodox worship her.

Among Roman Catholics, there are a few divergent sects within the church which lack official standing, specifically the group centered around the “private revelation” of Ida Peerdeman of “Our Lady of Amsterdam”, whose threatening character and demeanor and insistence on being regarded as co-redemptrix I think indicate that this was not a genuine Marian apparition, and the CDF (which is now the DDF due to the confusing reorganizations of Pope Francis) has always regarded it as “not worthy of belief.”

But other than that, and some of the people connected with Medjugorje, actual worship of the Theotokos in Roman Catholicism, which is a contradiction of the faith as specified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is extremely rare and is basically on a par with those Roman Catholics who defy the teaching of the church on issues such as human sexuality or abortion.

In the case of the Orthodox Church, Eastern Orthodox bishops will anathematize anyone who actually worships the Theotokos in violation of the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea, which reaffirmed the position of the Fourth Century Church as expressed in the Panarion of St. Epiphanios, that being that one is required to venerate the Theotokos and the Holy Icons but not to worship them, because the latter would be idolatry. And the Oriental Orthodox have the same doctrine.

 

[The Liturgist]

We're getting into a disturbing pocket of definition problems. Prayer, I'm explaining, is communication--not just consultation. It is prayer to God, or communication with beings beyond our realm, which is necromancy. To consult with them, or simply to talk to them, is a form of necromancy.

Only if they’re dead. If they are alive, in Heaven, or in the World to Come, which is the definition of being a saint, then they are not dead and communicating with them is not necromancy.

It would potentially be necromancy if one sought to communicate with someone whose soteriological status was unknown, but in the case of the Holy Martyrs, Apostles and the Theotokos, everyone agrees they are saints. Indeed traditionally, newly built Anglican churches were only named after the Theotokos and the Apostles, Martyrs and righteous persons of the New Testament. However, older churches which dated from the Roman Catholic era kept their names, such as St. Benet (Benedict) and St. Dunstan’s, and later the Anglicans fortunately relaxed this policy, so the Episcopal church I attended for a year had St. Francis of Assisi as its patron saint.

Unfortunately however there is not enough knowledge among Anglicans of Eastern saints, who they would greatly benefit from having as patrons of their churches, such as St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Jacob of Sarugh, or St. Isaac the Syrian.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Let's not confuse the Dictionary definition of "prayer," which is how we speak of the term in English, with the so-called "biblical definition" of "prayer." We wouldn't use the term "prayer" at all in the Bible unless it refers to the Dictionary definition of the term.

No you’re absolutely incorrect. The New Testament was written in Greek and as I’ve demonstrated the Greek usage of the word differs from the English usage. Would you say that the word repent according to the biblical usage means to feel remorse for past sin like the English definition of the word or would you say that it actually includes a bit more than just remorse? The point of translating is to attempt to convey the message that the author intended. If the message is given in Greek then Greek definitions would apply not English definition because the authors didn’t have English definitions.

 

[BNR32FAN]

At any rate this entire thread is a trainwreck, because it consists of a false accusation that all Roman Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin Mary, which is categorically untrue, and then furthermore extends that to the Orthodox, where I don’t think any Orthodox worship her.

Among Roman Catholics, there are a few divergent sects within the church which lack official standing, specifically the group centered around the “private revelation” of Ida Peerdeman of “Our Lady of Amsterdam”, whose threatening character and demeanor and insistence on being regarded as co-redemptrix I think indicate that this was not a genuine Marian apparition, and the CDF (which is now the DDF due to the confusing reorganizations of Pope Francis) has always regarded it as “not worthy of belief.”

But other than that, and some of the people connected with Medjugorje, actual worship of the Theotokos in Roman Catholicism, which is a contradiction of the faith as specified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is extremely rare and is basically on a par with those Roman Catholics who defy the teaching of the church on issues such as human sexuality or abortion.

In the case of the Orthodox Church, Eastern Orthodox bishops will anathematize anyone who actually worships the Theotokos in violation of the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea, which reaffirmed the position of the Fourth Century Church as expressed in the Panarion of St. Epiphanios, that being that one is required to venerate the Theotokos and the Holy Icons but not to worship them, because the latter would be idolatry. And the Oriental Orthodox have the same doctrine.

I agree, there’s more refutation of imaginary doctrines than anything else. Even when I’ve pointed out that if you’re going to refute a theology you have to make sure that the theology is actually taught before you refute it otherwise you’re just refuting something that doesn’t actually exist.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree, there’s more refutation of imaginary doctrines than anything else. Even when I’ve pointed out that if you’re going to refute a theology you have to make sure that the theology is actually taught before you refute it otherwise you’re just refuting something that doesn’t actually exist.

Indeed. I personally know zero Roman Catholics who engage in Mariolatry. I have seen posts by members of the Ida Peerdeman group online, and they are an extreme fringe movement.

Now, there is a cult that started out as, apparently, a traditional Latin mass group like the SSPX, before degenerating into a cult which engages in full-on Mariolatry and which even rewrote the Bible, known as the Palmarian Catholic Church, headquartered in Spain, and there is an excellent expose of this cult which one can find on YouTube which was conducted by Irish television.

 

[The Liturgist]

In all fairness, παρακαλέω is not the only word rendered as "pray" in English, and even in the KJV it's usually rendered "beseech" or "exhort." In the context of praying to God, the word is εύχομαι or προσεύχομαι, which in their secular usage mean "wish."

That said, there are various instances of requests for intercession via prayer (e.g. Colossians 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:25, 2 Thessalonians 3:1, Hebrews 13:18) which is the type of beseeching/praying that is being done to the saints. In particular, this is evidenced in 1 Tim. 2:1:

I exhort (παρακαλῶ) therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers (προσευχάς), intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men

All of this is to say that even if there is a particular kind of prayer reserved for God, it is still not improper in English to say one "prays" or beseeches the intercessory prayer of a saint.

This is all very correct.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Please show in the New Testament where it plainly states that your glorious lady is not going to be resurrected on judgement day and judged?

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not my Glorious Lady, but yours as well. Antidicomarianism (refusal to venerate the Theotokos) was regarded as a theological error in the fourth century, along with Collyridianism (Mariolatry), as we know from the Panarion of St. Epiphanios.

At any rate, you appeared to claim that she is not resurrected, whereas my statement is that even if you reject the doctrine of the Dormition, which I can understand even though I disagree with it, the idea that anyone is not resurrected is contrary to the New Testament. Furthermore, some people have already been accounted worthy, as we see in the case of the martyrs of the the New Testament, and the Good Thief, and obviously this applies to the Theotokos as well, for she gave birth to God.

The importance of her affirmative choice in giving birth to God and being His human mother cannot be overstated, because no other human, not even Moses, has had as intimate a relationship with Our Lord (and in the case of Moses, given the anthropic aspects of God when He interacted with him, it seems reasonable to assume that He was largely interacting with the Logos, although the Burning Bush and the column of smoke and pillar of fire was obviously the Holy Spirit, since we see the Holy Spirit appear in the same manner on Whitsunday.

Still waiting for for you to show the Scripture as requested.

 

[RandyPNW]

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not my Glorious Lady, but yours as well. Antidicomarianism (refusal to venerate the Theotokos) was regarded as a theological error in the fourth century, along with Collyridianism (Mariolatry), as we know from the Panarion of St. Epiphanios.

At any rate, you appeared to claim that she is not resurrected, whereas my statement is that even if you reject the doctrine of the Dormition, which I can understand even though I disagree with it, the idea that anyone is not resurrected is contrary to the New Testament. Furthermore, some people have already been accounted worthy, as we see in the case of the martyrs of the the New Testament, and the Good Thief, and obviously this applies to the Theotokos as well, for she gave birth to God.

Mary gave birth to a God-man, and not strictly to God. The distinction is obvious and important. The semantics gives more credit to the "Glorious Lady" than she deserves. And I say this not as though arguing it back in the early centuries of the Church when the Deity of Christ had to be clearly stated, but in the present time, when the "Glorious Lady" is being elevated to Heaven, to a place of transcendence.

You are indeed impressive using terms that describe Catholic arguments for Mary, but it is of little consequence. The Church overall is focused primarily on Salvation through Christ. Bringing Mary in has transitioned from a simple Christology to the elevation, unfortunately, of Mary from birthing Mother to Queen of Heaven.

The importance of her affirmative choice in giving birth to God and being His human mother cannot be overstated...

Yes it can and is being overstated!

, because no other human, not even Moses, has had as intimate a relationship with Our Lord (and in the case of Moses, given the anthropic aspects of God when He interacted with him, it seems reasonable to assume that He was largely interacting with the Logos, although the Burning Bush and the column of smoke and pillar of fire was obviously the Holy Spirit, since we see the Holy Spirit appear in the same manner on Whitsunday.

This from the Apostle Paul...
2 Cor 5.16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

Whatever Mary knew of Jesus within her family is irrelevant compared with knowing Jesus spiritually.

John 20.29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

John 4.19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”
21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Jesus clearly showed that Mary's knowledge of him was not superior to our own...

Matt 12.46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

Regarding Antidicomarianism, I read this in this Wikipedia article... Antidicomarians - Wikipedia
The view that the brothers of Jesus were the children of Mary and Joseph was held independently of the Antidicomarian sect in the early church: Tertullian, Hegesippus and Helvidius held it,[8] while Origen mentions it.

I'm not convinced that the Panarion authoritatively represents more than a limited perspective on Mariolatry and Theotokos, taking place within the limited understanding of St. Epiphanios in his own time. What we know now seems far in advance of what was generally agreed upon in the Early Church concerning Mary's elevated status as "Queen of Heaven," perpetual virginity, sinless condition, and someone to pray to.

 

[The Liturgist]

Still waiting for for you to show the Scripture as requested.

Let me explain this again: I was responding to what appeared to be a suggestion by you that the Theotokos is not among those resurrected, either before or on the Day of Judgement. This is also a view held, interestingly, by some Roman Catholics, who believe that the Theotokos was taken up to Heaven without having fallen asleep, but that does not agree with the Patristic narrative.

As I previously stated, there is no surviving scriptural account of the Dormition, so I don’t know why you are continuing to ask me for something I have plainly said does not exist.

 

[The Liturgist]

Mary gave birth to a God-man, and not strictly to God.

While it is true that our Lord is referred to as “Theantrhopos”, the way you are using God-man is actually Monophysite, not in the sense of Oriental Orthodoxy, as our friend @dzheremi can confirm, but in the sense of the beliefs of Eutyches that some misguided Eastern Orthodox, primarily Old Calendarists, accuse the Oriental Orthodox of believing.

To be more precise: Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man, without change, confusion, separation or division. The way you are using the term “God-man” is causing both a change in the person of the Logos, in that instead of Hypostatic Union, it implies a cominlging, which would cause Him to cease to be consubstantial with either the Father or with us, a point you may not have realized, and which also more obviously confuses His divinity and humanity.

The Divinity and Humanity of our Lord are, as agreed by the Oriental Orthodox, the Chalcedonians and the modern day Assyrian Church of the East, which has rejected classical Nestorianism, distinct without being separate or divided (which was Nestorian); they are not comingled. Jesus Christ is not a hybrid of God and Man but is fully God and fully Man at the same time, with a human will and a divine will, as established among the Chalcedonian churches at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, and separately by the Oriental Orthodox in their anathematization of monothelites such as the group which later became the Maronite Catholics (and which clearly no longer believes in monothelitism). Pope Honorius I did believe in Monothelitism, and is noteworthy as the only Bishop of Rome whose adhered to a doctrine declared to be anathema by an ecumenical council. Indeed its possible that the reason why the Maronites enthusiastically embraced the crusaders was out of a sense of loyalty to Pope Honorius I.

 

[The Liturgist]

You are indeed impressive using terms that describe Catholic arguments for Mary, but it is of little consequence. The Church overall is focused primarily on Salvation through Christ. Bringing Mary in has transitioned from a simple Christology to the elevation, unfortunately, of Mary from birthing Mother to Queen of Heaven.

Here you are again mistaken. I have not used Roman Catholic arguments concerning the Theotokos, but rather have carefully limited myself to Orthodox arguments only.

Insofar as the Orthodox and Assyrian churches agree with the Roman Catholic churches, this establishes a Patristic consensus, but we do not agree with them on everything, for example, we do not venerate the Theotokos as Queen of Heaven, although we do not object to this title, but it is not a part of our tradition. We do officially reject devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and furthermore the Orthodox also reject the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which we regard as problematic because it differentiates her from other humans, and is also unecessary in our hamartiology, which is based on the refutation of Pelagius by St. John Cassian, which is much more refined and precise than the somewhat awkward approach of St. Augustine, who believed that original sin was transmitted like a venereal disease, through concupiscence during the process of reproduction, which is hugely problematic since scripture affirms that the marriage bed is undefiled.

Specifically, what I have expressed about the Theotokos is found in the Patristic writings about her, and also in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox sources which postdate the schisms whereby Rome separated itself from us. Specifically, the acts of the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Nicaea, and the Panarion of St. Epiphanios the bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus. Among these, I strongly recommend Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.

I can supply copies of the former; the latter is under copyright but I believe it can be borrowed from the Internet Library of the Internet Archive. You can PM me if you wish to read the material, which I strongly suggest.

I would also suggest Orthodox Christology, by the Coptic Orthodox priest Fr. Peter Farringdon.

 

[Always in His Presence]

As I previously stated, there is no surviving scriptural account of the Dormition, so I don’t know why you are continuing to ask me for something I have plainly said does not exist.

While your terminology is familiar to you, try speaking plain English and it will be clearer to all.

Mary did NOT fall asleep. She died. And as you stated there is no scripture that exists to support the tradition.

That means it is unscriptural. I don’t believe it nor follow it.

And that is our difference

 

[The Liturgist]

While your terminology is familiar to you, try speaking plain English and it will be clearer to all.

Mary did NOT fall asleep. She died. And as you stated there is no scripture that exists to support the tradition.

That means it is unscriptural. I don’t believe it nor follow it.

And that is our difference

Those who God has numbered among the saints do not die, but fall asleep in the Lord. Death can be defined as two things: a transitory state for those whose soteriological status is indeterminate, and a second death, which is to be as a mercy cast into the outer darkness in order to avoid the torment of being in the immediate presence of God, whose love is a consuming fire, as this would be an unbearable torment for those who hate God. Thus even this is an act of mercy on the part of our all good and loving God. As CS Lewis writes, “the gates of Hell are locked on the inside.” And as St. John Chrysostom wrote, the greatest possible punishment is missing out on the joy of the World to Come.

Now, regarding theological terminology, it is extremely important to use precise terminology, because failure to do so has been the cause of countless heresies and schisms. For example, Nestorianism involves the use of the phrase “Christotokos” instead of the correct “Theotokos.”

Lastly, the doctrine of the Dormition is not unscriptural, because it does not contradict Sacred Scripture.

 

[The Liturgist]

And that is our difference

I would say our main difference is that your seminary did not stress the importance of Patristics, which to be fair mine understated, requiring me to re-train myself under the mentorship of an Orthodox bishop, but the net result is that we differ in our appreciation of the history of the early church and the church Fathers.

You seem to take the unfortunate view of many Pentecostal, Restorationist, Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians who have a particular dislike of Roman Catholicism and simply group all of the Church Fathers as being somehow “Roman Catholic”, by buying into the narratives the Roman Catholic church has propagated about itself, insofar as the RCC greatly overstates both its power and influence in the Early Church.

And this is ironic, because what inspired Martin Luther to take on Rome and not to be afraid of the rupture of communion was his study of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, which is ancient, dating to the fourth century, and which in no respect could ever be said to have been under the control of the Pope of Rome. Likewise, the Anglicans including John Wesley historically have had a very intense relationship with all of the Eastern churches, especially the Eastern Orthodox.

This is why to a large extent Lutheran and high church Anglican and Methodist worship looks more like Orthodoxy than like Baptist or Restorationist worship, and also why High Church Anglican and Confessional Lutheran worship continues to look more like the Tridentine mass, which was closer to Orthodox liturgy, than the Novus Ordo Missae. Since at one time the Roman Catholic Church was part of the Orthodox Church, but separated itself and developed certain doctrinal errors, which eventually became intolerable during the reign of Pope Leo X.