Mariolatry?

[Always in His Presence]

Quote: The first Christian century may be silent, but anonymous traditions concerning the Dormition began circulating as early as the third century and perhaps 'even earlier' such as the Book of Mary's Repose. According to some, before the 4th-5th century the Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.

Alright, let's go with that. Then the Dormition is not a product of that westernization because it's attested anywhere from 25 to 124 years prior to the beginning of that westernization.

Incorrect

 

[The Liturgist]

Incorrect

You do realize you are now contradicting yourself? Since you just said the westernization of the church began at 325 AD.

 

[jas3]

Incorrect

I would appreciate it if you would elaborate. I wouldn't want to read this in an insulting way, but right now I struggle to understand your insistence as anything other than you refusing to admit or failing to understand that the third century ended 25 years before AD 325.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You do realize you are now contradicting yourself? Since you just said the westernization of the church began at 325 AD.

Mo, not at all. It was not part of the early church fathers - in fact for an unknown period of centuries. There is no specific date when the tradition was accepted. Such traditions were not embraced in the early church, so it is a logical conclusion.

“Queen of heaven“. Was a pagan title that had been given to a number of goddesses through the millennia.

In Jeremiah 44:Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

References the pagan goddess

Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine."

There is consensus in some schools of h=thought that as the church blended with Western culture they embraced the pagan traditions and attributed the title to Mary.

Regardless - the tradition is NOT supported by scripture and you, yourself admitted that.

 

[Valletta]

Mo, not at all. It was not part of the early church fathers - in fact for an unknown period of centuries. There is no specific date when the tradition was accepted. Such traditions were not embraced in the early church, so it is a logical conclusion.

“Queen of heaven“. Was a pagan title that had been given to a number of goddesses through the millennia.

The cross was a pagan symbol. "Christian" was the name for followers that was first used by the pagans. There were many pagan kings before Jesus our one true king was born. As to queen, the title was given to the mother of every Davidic king starting with Solomon. Are you saying Jesus, son of David, was not a worthy enough king for his mother to have the title of queen, a title given to the previous mothers of Davidic kings?

 

[Always in His Presence]

The cross was a pagan symbol. "Christian" was the name for followers that was first used by the pagans. There were many pagan kings before Jesus our one true king was born. As to queen, the title was given to the mother of every Davidic king starting with Solomon. Are you saying Jesus, son of David, was not a worthy enough king for his mother to have the title of queen, a title given to the previous mothers of Davidic kings?

You have added one and one and got banana. You do realize that all those who are titled Queen sat on the throne and ruled their Kingdom - yet the claim is that Mary is the only Queen who does not sit on a throne nor rule her kingdom. How can that be - the very Queen of Heaven with no throne and no Authority?

1. I never mentioned David, nor Davidic Kings - that point is unconnected therefore moot.

2. Jeremiah is not speaking of a worldly 'queen of heaven, but a spiritual one who is assigned by pagan beliefs.

3. My Brother in Christ has already stated very plainly that there is not scriptural support for placing Mary in such a position. His words, not mine

4. As shown - the early church fathers are SILENT on the matter

The tradition, while beloved and embraced by my Brothers, is not based in scripture, but to an extent mirrors pagan beliefs from the area and era where it started. The tradition has morphed over the millennia to where Mary has become beyond human. Perpetual Virgin - yet Scripture names her other sons and mentions her daughters in several places. The elevation to mediator/intercessor with God that directly contradicts Scripture.

If you want to embrace tradition over scripture - that is your prerogative. I appreciate the honesty of my Brother in Christ @The Liturgist and respect you for it.

 

[The Liturgist]

“Queen of heaven“. Was a pagan title that had been given to a number of goddesses through the millennia

Oh not this again. How many times must it be repeated that the Orthodox Churches do not use this title in reference to the Theotokos?

But some Protestants do! Specifically, many Anglo Catholics and some Lutherans. Likewise, these same Protestants will use statues as iconography, whereas the Orthodox do not use statues or realistic imagery, but instead use intentionally stylized two dimensional imagery and bas-relief exclusively.

 

[The Liturgist]

The cross was a pagan symbol. "Christian" was the name for followers that was first used by the pagans. There were many pagan kings before Jesus our one true king was born. As to queen, the title was given to the mother of every Davidic king starting with Solomon. Are you saying Jesus, son of David, was not a worthy enough king for his mother to have the title of queen, a title given to the previous mothers of Davidic kings?

This is entirely correct and a very important point. It is fallacious to say that because the Pagans used a title, therefore Christians cannot use it. Indeed, we know that the devil does intentionally dissimulate counterfeit Christian cults and other religions that appear to resemble Christianity and Judaism on the fringes of it, such as Buddhism, Manichaenism, Mormonism, Islam, Arianism, including the modern day J/Ws, and other sects.

And also there is the principle of General Revelation. People have an intuitive sense of the divine, but in the absence of the guidance of the Christian Church, however one defines it, will make misidentifications. For example, the Egyptian religion had the idea of a Theanthropic person, a God who was also a Man, and we see this motif repeated in the cults that surrounded Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar and other important figures of antiquity. The intuition is correct, but the identification is wrong.*

*This fact was pointed out by Archpriest Andrew S. Damick of the Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America, which is closely related to my church (the OCA) in his work of modern-day heresiology, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, I think in both the first and second editions.

 

[dzheremi]

Friends (Romans! Countrymen! ), it is clear that we are dealing with another person who believes (or at least posts as though they believe) the Bible to have fallen out of the sky, whole and complete (and probably with 66 books exactly...) without the intervention of the Church at any point, and hence fit to be placed above the Church which every other person understands to have produced and canonized it. What are we to do? We're simply too far apart in mindset.

The Bible is the book of the Church. We wrote it, we canonized it, we interpret it, we preach it, we venerate it, and we do all of these things because it is truly holy as the book of the Church. It is not for anyone to attempt to set up against the Church as though that makes any sense whatsoever when it clearly does not. And if you believe other than this, fine, but know that this is the consistent approach to the scriptures for over 2,000 years in Christianity, and other approaches to them are thereby outside of the historical norm, and are not going to yield good fruit when asserted over what has already been established. To have the humility of the Ethiopian eunuch (as we should all have), we need to first recognize that we too cannot understand without someone to teach us. For those of us in established, historically-rooted communions, this is obvious enough as this is how we operate in everything (not just hermeneutics), but for those who are not in such secure places, it might benefit you to reflect on how you may figure the Ethiopian eunuch's example into your own lives and your own reading of the scriptures. Who teaches you?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Oh not this again. How many times must it be repeated that the Orthodox Churches do not use this title in reference to the Theotokos?

Are you the person I was responding to?

Save your indignation for when you personally are addressed. I merely responded to the poster who was defending the title.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Quote: before the 4th-5th century the Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.

Again - until the church was Westernized it was not widely taught nor recognized. As plainly stated by @The Liturgist it supported no place in scripture.

 

[jas3]

Mo, not at all. It was not part of the early church fathers - in fact for an unknown period of centuries. There is no specific date when the tradition was accepted

This is what's known as moving the goalposts. You were originally saying that the Dormition was inauthentic because it was attested to from the third century, when you thought the Council of Nicaea was held. Now that your error has been pointed out, you've changed your argument to say that there's not a "specific date" when the tradition was "accepted," which is absurd in itself.

Quote: before the 4th-5th century the Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.

Oh, but it's too late for you to pivot to latching on to the "4th-5th century" line, because you clearly were claiming (and bolded and highlighted for me) that the Dormition was one of those no-good third century traditions.

Again - until the church was Westernized it was not widely taught nor recognized. As plainly stated by @The Liturgist it supported no place in scripture.

I am curious if you are able or willing to answer any of his questions from post #420. Do you know how many western bishops were at the council? More importantly, if you see the Council of Nicaea as a damaging influence on Christianity, do you reject the Nicene Creed?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Quote: before the 4th-5th century the Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.

Again - until the church was Westernized it was not widely taught nor recognized. As plainly stated by @The Liturgist it supported no place in scripture.

The Feast of the Dormition, which commemorates the “falling asleep” (death) of Mary the Theotokos, is observed on August 15 in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Emperor Maurice established this feast as early as the end of the 6th century throughout the Byzantine Empire 1. However, anonymous traditions about the Dormition began circulating even earlier, possibly as early as the third century 2. Before the 4th-5th century, it was not universally celebrated as a holy day among Christians 3.
references:
1 catholiceducation.org, 2 en.wikipedia.org, 3 kids.kiddle.co, 4 encyclopedia.com

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Assumption of Mary is a significant belief in Christian tradition. Let’s explore its history and origins:

1. Archaeological Evidence:
   • Archaeology has revealed two tombs associated with Mary—one in Jerusalem and another in Ephesus. However, what’s remarkable is that neither tomb contains her body or relics. This absence aligns with the doctrine of the Assumption, which asserts that Mary was taken up bodily into heaven 1.
2. Early Writings:
   • The earliest printed reference to Mary’s Assumption dates back to the fourth century. A document titled “The Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God” alludes to this belief.
   • In the East (both Catholic and Orthodox), it’s known as the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) 2.
3. Celebration:
   • The Solemnity of the Assumption has been celebrated since the 5th century, initially on August 15. In the Byzantine tradition, it’s referred to as her “Dormition.”
   • In Rome, it began to be celebrated in the 7th century. Pope Pius XII officially proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s assumption in 1950 3,4.

References:
1catholic.com, 2learnreligions.com, 3vaticannews.va, 4bing.com. 5ewtn.com

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not according to Scripture. John 4:24, and for that matter John 1:1-18. He is not even visible - no one has seen Him at any time. St. Moses interacted with Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit in the form of the burning bush. And St. Isaiah saw Jesus Christ as the Ancient of Days, for anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father.

Rather, it is clear from Scripture that the Father has only ever been perceived audibly, notably “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Conversely, we are not sure of any instant where the Holy Spirit was heard audibly rather than experienced visually and via other perceptual means, for example, as what the Jews called the Shekhinah.

Yes and somehow despite not having a physical body He is able to hear prayers. And even if Mary and the saints aren’t able to hear prayers it’s still irrelevant because praying to them is not forbidden and God still heard those prayers. So even if they’re right and they can’t hear the prayers it still doesn’t justify condemning the practice of praying to them.

 

[The Liturgist]

Are you the person I was responding to?

Save your indignation for when you personally are addressed. I merely responded to the poster who was defending the title.

Any unwarranted criticism against the Orthodox Church is something all Orthodox Christians will respond to, with love. We don’t aggressively attack other denominations but we do aggressively defend ourselves against the various false accusations that people have been making about us for the past 1500 years.

No Orthodox church has ever condoned burning people at the stake. Indeed in Russia the spread of a death-cult of immolators and two additional cults of people who would flog or castrate themselves caused great alarm, and the one thing the Czarist Secret Police did which I do agree with was to attempt to locate the members of these sects and put a stop to their heretical self-harm - it is not enough to compensate for the anti-Semitic forgeries they would later publish, but like the KGB (technically the Border Guards in charge of immigration and customs as opposed to the counter-intelligence and economic espionage units; military intelligence was always a separate agency, the GRU, analogous to the CIA/DIA split in the US) arresting people who tried smuggling drugs to Western Europe through the Soviet Union, it was a good deed.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Assumption of Mary is a significant belief in Christian tradition. Let’s explore its history and origins:

1. Archaeological Evidence:
   • Archaeology has revealed two tombs associated with Mary—one in Jerusalem and another in Ephesus. However, what’s remarkable is that neither tomb contains her body or relics. This absence aligns with the doctrine of the Assumption, which asserts that Mary was taken up bodily into heaven 1.
2. Early Writings:
   • The earliest printed reference to Mary’s Assumption dates back to the fourth century. A document titled “The Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God” alludes to this belief.
   • In the East (both Catholic and Orthodox), it’s known as the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) 2.
3. Celebration:
   • The Solemnity of the Assumption has been celebrated since the 5th century, initially on August 15. In the Byzantine tradition, it’s referred to as her “Dormition.”
   • In Rome, it began to be celebrated in the 7th century. Pope Pius XII officially proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s assumption in 1950 3,4.

References:
1catholic.com, 2learnreligions.com, 3vaticannews.va, 4bing.com. 5ewtn.com

Indeed the lack of relics of the Theotokos is truly remarkable considering the relics we have of almost literally everyone else. In her case, all we have are fragments of clothing. The majority of sacred objects connected with Our Most Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary are various Holy Icons, such as the myrhh streaming icons and other miraculous icons (the Kursk Root Icon and Our Lady of Iveron myrhh-gushing icon come to mind among Orthodox icons, and Our Lady of Guadalupe is a beautiful icon painted by an Aztec who had never seen the inside of an Orthodox church, yet it features much in common with Orthodox icons, and by depicting the Theotokos with a more realistic skin color than the Renaissance icons of her, and by virtue of the apparition of the Theotokos and other aspects, that icon was indispensable in the Baptism of Mexico and the destruction of the evil Mesoamerican human sacrifice religions.

 

[The Liturgist]

Quote: before the 4th-5th century the Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.

Again - until the church was Westernized it was not widely taught nor recognized. As plainly stated by @The Liturgist it supported no place in scripture.

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I said in post 395 the event was not recorded in surviving scripture. It is scripturally supported, however, for example, by the Magnificat and other texts, and by the example of what happened to the Holy Prophets St. Elias and St. Enoch and the body of St. Moses.

I specifically rejected the idea that the Magnifcat was unscriptural in post 400.

 

[The Liturgist]

My Brother in Christ has already stated very plainly that there is not scriptural support for placing Mary in such a position. His words, not mine

Not my words. You are overstating what I said for dramatic effect and claiming I drew a conclusion which I did not.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The Assumption of Mary is a significant belief in Christian tradition. Let’s explore its history and origins:

1. Archaeological Evidence:
   • Archaeology has revealed two tombs associated with Mary—one in Jerusalem and another in Ephesus. However, what’s remarkable is that neither tomb contains her body or relics. This absence aligns with the doctrine of the Assumption, which asserts that Mary was taken up bodily into heaven 1.
2. Early Writings:
   • The earliest printed reference to Mary’s Assumption dates back to the fourth century. A document titled “The Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God” alludes to this belief.
   • In the East (both Catholic and Orthodox), it’s known as the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) 2.
3. Celebration:
   • The Solemnity of the Assumption has been celebrated since the 5th century, initially on August 15. In the Byzantine tradition, it’s referred to as her “Dormition.”
   • In Rome, it began to be celebrated in the 7th century. Pope Pius XII officially proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s assumption in 1950 3,4.

References:
1catholic.com, 2learnreligions.com, 3vaticannews.va, 4bing.com. 5ewtn.com

Your own reference place it in the third or fourth or fifth century.

Golly, what have I been saying?