"Ever sinless" Theotokos
- Thread starter howdydave
- Start date
I agree. But this is the first time I have seen Orthodx argue with each other about it. I have always seen people discuss it like this:
-I've always believed XYZ because of this and that saint and ....
-Yeah, I can see that. For me, ABC seems more apparent because of this or that...
It was just people sharing their POV and respecting each other's right to disagree.
Look at you. You've said that this issue makes you struggle. But why should it? I think your POV is perfectly understandable and it is not unOrthodox. If it works for you, then go with it. If a different POV makes you stumble, then leave it.
That's not happening here as much in this thread and gives protestants the idea that this is a dogmatic issue up which our personal Orthodoxy depends or as if the Church has always been absolutely clear on this. My point of view is that she didn't sin. It makes sense to me given all of the speactacular wording. I could be wrong. Whatever. What we know is that she was as close to God as any human (other than Christ of course) has ever been.
Everyone here has raised valid points. But honestly, in the end, all that matters is that we honor our Mother because she is the Theotokos, the Mother of God.
It's not the topic that bothers me at all... it's the tenor with which it is "discussed" here.
Josh
-I've always believed XYZ because of this and that saint and ....
-Yeah, I can see that. For me, ABC seems more apparent because of this or that...
It was just people sharing their POV and respecting each other's right to disagree.
Look at you. You've said that this issue makes you struggle. But why should it? I think your POV is perfectly understandable and it is not unOrthodox. If it works for you, then go with it. If a different POV makes you stumble, then leave it.
That's not happening here as much in this thread and gives protestants the idea that this is a dogmatic issue up which our personal Orthodoxy depends or as if the Church has always been absolutely clear on this. My point of view is that she didn't sin. It makes sense to me given all of the speactacular wording. I could be wrong. Whatever. What we know is that she was as close to God as any human (other than Christ of course) has ever been.
Everyone here has raised valid points. But honestly, in the end, all that matters is that we honor our Mother because she is the Theotokos, the Mother of God.
It's not the topic that bothers me at all... it's the tenor with which it is "discussed" here.
Josh
Upvote
0
there are Orthodox who DO believe Mary never sinned. It doesn't mean she achieved this without Christ.. she in fact achieved it by grace, as teh Bible says, she's "full of grace"
and grace comes from Christ.God bless
Upvote
0
[/size][/font]
there are Orthodox who DO believe Mary never sinned. It doesn't mean she achieved this without Christ.. she in fact achieved it by grace, as teh Bible says, she's "full of grace"
God bless
I'm backing this up so no one pulls the "your not Orthodox card" on her. Or, if they do, at least her point still stands quoted in my post.
Upvote
0
MariaRegina
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Dn Patrick
I believe that Mary never sinned because the grace of Christ, the Pre-eternal Son of God, pervaded her childhood and entire earthly life as she had dedicated herself entirely to God. She was offered divine grace and accepted it willingly without question.
The Holy Theotokos was raised by God-fearing parents and her conception was natural but miraculous in that both of her parents were elderly and beyond the age of conceiving a child. Saints Elizabeth and Zachary also conceived in their old age naturally but miraculously. Two miraculous births foretold that God was preparing the way for His Son to be born.
If our Lady had sinned, and formed sinful habits, it would have been impossible for her to suddenly stop sinning just because she bore Christ within her. A tiny unborn child does not make any noticeable movements until about the fifth month, and even then, those movements are not constant.
Even though we receive Christ in Holy Communion, how many of us go into the Church hall and gossip or complain? The coffee is not hot enough. Someone forgot the milk again. The donuts taste stale, and on and on. Probably most of us fail. And it is hard to break that habit of sin. So, for this reason, I believe in the ever-sinlessness of the pure and blameless Theotokos.
It just makes sense that we hymn her:
ever-blessed = always blessed, always full of grace
all-immaculate = always pure and holy
beyond compare more glorious thatn the Seraphim = she is full of grace and bore Christ our God
without corruption - ever sinless
O Most Holy Theotokos, save us.
Dear MariaRegina,
For those who honor Mary as “ever sinless,” this topic is necessary, because if Mary in fact never ever sinned, then Pelagius was right: It is possible for a human being to be perfect WITHOUT CHRIST.
For those who honor Mary as “ever sinless,” this topic is necessary, because if Mary in fact never ever sinned, then Pelagius was right: It is possible for a human being to be perfect WITHOUT CHRIST.
there are Orthodox who DO believe Mary never sinned. It doesn't mean she achieved this without Christ.. she in fact achieved it by grace, as teh Bible says, she's "full of grace"
God bless
I believe that Mary never sinned because the grace of Christ, the Pre-eternal Son of God, pervaded her childhood and entire earthly life as she had dedicated herself entirely to God. She was offered divine grace and accepted it willingly without question.
The Holy Theotokos was raised by God-fearing parents and her conception was natural but miraculous in that both of her parents were elderly and beyond the age of conceiving a child. Saints Elizabeth and Zachary also conceived in their old age naturally but miraculously. Two miraculous births foretold that God was preparing the way for His Son to be born.
If our Lady had sinned, and formed sinful habits, it would have been impossible for her to suddenly stop sinning just because she bore Christ within her. A tiny unborn child does not make any noticeable movements until about the fifth month, and even then, those movements are not constant.
Even though we receive Christ in Holy Communion, how many of us go into the Church hall and gossip or complain? The coffee is not hot enough. Someone forgot the milk again. The donuts taste stale, and on and on. Probably most of us fail. And it is hard to break that habit of sin. So, for this reason, I believe in the ever-sinlessness of the pure and blameless Theotokos.
It just makes sense that we hymn her:
p.272 A Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians (2000) said:
ever-blessed = always blessed, always full of grace
all-immaculate = always pure and holy
beyond compare more glorious thatn the Seraphim = she is full of grace and bore Christ our God
without corruption - ever sinless
O Most Holy Theotokos, save us.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
wow - I like that story about St Silouan..
I used to deny that our Blessed Mother is special in any way, but once I was taught that she is, I felt peace too. Originally Posted by Dn Patrick
Dear MariaRegina,I believe that Mary never sinned because the grace of Christ, the Pre-eternal Son of God, pervaded her childhood and entire earthly life as she had dedicated herself entirely to God. She was offered divine grace and accepted it willingly without question.
For those who honor Mary as “ever sinless,” this topic is necessary, because if Mary in fact never ever sinned, then Pelagius was right: It is possible for a human being to be perfect WITHOUT CHRIST.
The Holy Theotokos was raised by God-fearing parents and her conception was natural but miraculous in that both of her parents were elderly and beyond the age of conceiving a child. Saints Elizabeth and Zachary also conceived in their old age naturally but miraculously. Two miraculous births foretold that God was preparing the way for His Son to be born.
If our Lady had sinned, and formed sinful habits, it would have been impossible for her to suddenly stop sinning just because she bore Christ within her. A tiny unborn child does not make any noticeable movements until about the fifth month, and even then, those movements are not constant.
Even though we receive Christ in Holy Communion, how many of us go into the Church hall and gossip or complain? The coffee is not hot enough. Someone forgot the milk again. The donuts taste stale, and on and on. Probably most of us fail. And it is hard to break that habit of sin. So, for this reason, I believe in the ever-sinlessness of the pure and blameless Theotokos.
It just makes sense that we hymn her:
O Most Holy Theotokos, save us.
I think there's just something really 'right' about believing that our Blessed Mother didn't offend God with sin and pleased Him in all she did. it just fits.. I think it makes sense if we look at it more like children do, with love for their Mother, than using our reason alone. Devotion to Mary is somehow very 'natural', I think if children were never taught to fear her (as some are taught) it would come so easily.
Upvote
0
MariaRegina
Well-Known Member
wow - I like that story about St Silouan..
I think there's just something really 'right' about believing that our Blessed Mother didn't offend God with sin and pleased Him in all she did. it just fits.. I think it makes sense if we look at it more like children do, with love for their Mother, than using our reason alone. Devotion to Mary is somehow very 'natural', I think if children were never taught to fear her (as some are taught) it would come so easily.
God bless you and grant you many years, Monica.
Upvote
0
Protoevangel
Smash the Patriarchy!
- Feb 6, 2004
- 11,662
- 1,248
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I am the one who was getting out of hand. If anyone else followed suit in whatever small way, it was miniscule compared to my offence, and it was my sin that caused it all.
My problem was exacerbated by a perfect storm of personal, family, and financial problems that were dragging my mind and attitude into hell... But that in no way makes my outrageous behavior right. I tried to apologize once, but I know my earlier harsh tone likely drowned out my pitiful display of repentance. Once again, Joshua, and anyone else who I offended with my antics, please accept my complete, rueful, and heartfelt apology.
Upvote
0
God bless you, Protoevangel. Our prayers are with you.
For everyone else, here are a few things to ponder:
1) The Theotokos is normally referred to as “our Lady,” not “our Mother.” She is the “Mother of God,” in the sense of having given birth to Christ, but she is not “our Mother.” “Our Mother” is the Church, the Bride of Christ.
2) “Without corruption” and “without defilement” mean virginal, not sinless. The line is “You gave birth without corruption,” not “You lived your entire life without sin.”
3) As we have seen, the early fathers of the Church did not assume that being “full of grace” meant absolute sinlessness, anymore than being “full of the Holy Spirit” did.
4) If Mary was ever sinless, why should she have had to bear the penalty of sickness and death and every other ill that follows from the Fall? After all, if she never sinned, then she never fell.
5) If we say that Mary had to suffer death on account of “ancestral sin,” aren’t we confessing the Roman Catholic doctrine of inherited guilt based on “original sin”?
6) Is it possible to over-do our veneration of the Theotokos? In a recent talk, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA made mention of the “hypertrophy” of the Theotokos characteristic of Roman Catholicism. He apparently believes that it is possible to think too highly of Mary. But what we have seen here is a passionate unwillingness to diminish Mary in any way, except to admit that, well, technically speaking, she isn’t God.
7) If it is possible to over-do veneration of the Theotokos, then how are the RC’s guilty of hypertrophy and the Orthodox not guilty of it? What is too much?
8) If it is not possible to over-do veneration of the Theotokos, then what’s the difference between veneration and worship?
9) Lastly, so what if Mary did sin at some point? What problems does that cause? What questions does that raise?
In Christ,
Dn. Patrick
For everyone else, here are a few things to ponder:
1) The Theotokos is normally referred to as “our Lady,” not “our Mother.” She is the “Mother of God,” in the sense of having given birth to Christ, but she is not “our Mother.” “Our Mother” is the Church, the Bride of Christ.
2) “Without corruption” and “without defilement” mean virginal, not sinless. The line is “You gave birth without corruption,” not “You lived your entire life without sin.”
3) As we have seen, the early fathers of the Church did not assume that being “full of grace” meant absolute sinlessness, anymore than being “full of the Holy Spirit” did.
4) If Mary was ever sinless, why should she have had to bear the penalty of sickness and death and every other ill that follows from the Fall? After all, if she never sinned, then she never fell.
5) If we say that Mary had to suffer death on account of “ancestral sin,” aren’t we confessing the Roman Catholic doctrine of inherited guilt based on “original sin”?
6) Is it possible to over-do our veneration of the Theotokos? In a recent talk, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA made mention of the “hypertrophy” of the Theotokos characteristic of Roman Catholicism. He apparently believes that it is possible to think too highly of Mary. But what we have seen here is a passionate unwillingness to diminish Mary in any way, except to admit that, well, technically speaking, she isn’t God.
7) If it is possible to over-do veneration of the Theotokos, then how are the RC’s guilty of hypertrophy and the Orthodox not guilty of it? What is too much?
8) If it is not possible to over-do veneration of the Theotokos, then what’s the difference between veneration and worship?
9) Lastly, so what if Mary did sin at some point? What problems does that cause? What questions does that raise?
In Christ,
Dn. Patrick
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Kreikkalainen
You can't spell or pronounce me
I love questionnaires .
If the russian tradition refers to normal nuns by Mother, I don't see a problem with refering to the Mother of God likewise. Nuns aren't our mothers either. It's a sentimental thing perhaps & I don't use it, but it doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
This is very true and I wanted to point it out too. This translation introduces some ambiguity that's not there in the original text of the prayer. The word that's translated as "without corruption" is an adverb in the original greek, that qualifies how She gave birth, not how She was.
Several saints did believe She was sinless. St Silouan the Athonite was mentioned earlier in this thread. If you visit the monastery in Essex for the Vigil on the eve of a Theotokos feast & stay for dinner, they always read the relevant part from St Silouan's writings over dinner. I'm not saying he couldn't have been mistaken, but I am saying that at least we don't have consensus & quite frankly if numbers mattered (I know they don't), then I think we would have majority for sinlessness.
Because Adam fell and the consequence of the fall was sickness and death for humanity. Somebody here mentioned infants, newborns. They aren't born with any personal sin, but they are under the consequences of ancestral sin, i.e. they may die. Likewise, I mentioned Confession. Immediately after Confession, our sins have been forgiven, yet still we could die. In fact, we wish we would die immediately after Confession!
No we aren't. We are confessing the Orthodox idea of the consequences of the ancestral sin being suffering and death for humanity, that we all humans inherit without exception.
Can I ask something broader? Why do we always have to discuss what we believe as opposed to what Rome teaches? Why don't we just leave Rome alone? I guess if we were protestants, it might have been necessary to do that, because I suppose after all by definition protestants are just that, guys who protested against Rome. But we aren't protestants, so I see absolutely no need to live in the fear of the consequences of saying something that might sound to somebody as remotely reminiscent of Rome...
Yes.
What I have seen here is a passionate unwillingness to tolerate any praise for the Theotokos, except to admit that, well, technically speaking, She gave birth to the Lord! But of course, She was "just" a vessel... "just" a vessel of the Uncontainable God (as if saying, like so many others...
)
The prayers of the Church, the Paraklesis, the Akathist, the prayers of the Small Compline, the Theotokia, the 9th Ode of every Canon that is always dedicated to Her, are not too much, because the Church of Christ is using them for hundreds of years and the Church of Christ is our authority. Plus, both our personal & the Church's collective experience testify to the effectiveness of these prayers.
If I started writing my own prayers or literature about the Theotokos or about any other matter, that would be dangerous and likely to get "too much"...
a) It is, but also b) veneration is honouring, worship is worship.
Depends on the sin. If you tell me the Theotokos was a murderess, then with all my respect you don't know what you are talking about. If for some reason it makes you feel more comfortable to say that in Her life She fell to three impious thoughts and said two small lies, then I don't think I see any big problem. Something inside me doesn't like the idea at all, I have to say. It feels as if saying something like that will leave a bitter taste in my mouth - but that may be just me and my own fallible insticts.
.If the russian tradition refers to normal nuns by Mother, I don't see a problem with refering to the Mother of God likewise. Nuns aren't our mothers either. It's a sentimental thing perhaps & I don't use it, but it doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
This is very true and I wanted to point it out too. This translation introduces some ambiguity that's not there in the original text of the prayer. The word that's translated as "without corruption" is an adverb in the original greek, that qualifies how She gave birth, not how She was.
Several saints did believe She was sinless. St Silouan the Athonite was mentioned earlier in this thread. If you visit the monastery in Essex for the Vigil on the eve of a Theotokos feast & stay for dinner, they always read the relevant part from St Silouan's writings over dinner. I'm not saying he couldn't have been mistaken, but I am saying that at least we don't have consensus & quite frankly if numbers mattered (I know they don't), then I think we would have majority for sinlessness.
Because Adam fell and the consequence of the fall was sickness and death for humanity. Somebody here mentioned infants, newborns. They aren't born with any personal sin, but they are under the consequences of ancestral sin, i.e. they may die. Likewise, I mentioned Confession. Immediately after Confession, our sins have been forgiven, yet still we could die. In fact, we wish we would die immediately after Confession!
No we aren't. We are confessing the Orthodox idea of the consequences of the ancestral sin being suffering and death for humanity, that we all humans inherit without exception.
Can I ask something broader? Why do we always have to discuss what we believe as opposed to what Rome teaches? Why don't we just leave Rome alone? I guess if we were protestants, it might have been necessary to do that, because I suppose after all by definition protestants are just that, guys who protested against Rome. But we aren't protestants, so I see absolutely no need to live in the fear of the consequences of saying something that might sound to somebody as remotely reminiscent of Rome...
Yes.
What I have seen here is a passionate unwillingness to tolerate any praise for the Theotokos, except to admit that, well, technically speaking, She gave birth to the Lord! But of course, She was "just" a vessel... "just" a vessel of the Uncontainable God (as if saying, like so many others...
)The prayers of the Church, the Paraklesis, the Akathist, the prayers of the Small Compline, the Theotokia, the 9th Ode of every Canon that is always dedicated to Her, are not too much, because the Church of Christ is using them for hundreds of years and the Church of Christ is our authority. Plus, both our personal & the Church's collective experience testify to the effectiveness of these prayers.
If I started writing my own prayers or literature about the Theotokos or about any other matter, that would be dangerous and likely to get "too much"...
a) It is, but also b) veneration is honouring, worship is worship.
Depends on the sin. If you tell me the Theotokos was a murderess, then with all my respect you don't know what you are talking about. If for some reason it makes you feel more comfortable to say that in Her life She fell to three impious thoughts and said two small lies, then I don't think I see any big problem. Something inside me doesn't like the idea at all, I have to say. It feels as if saying something like that will leave a bitter taste in my mouth - but that may be just me and my own fallible insticts.
Upvote
0
Kristos
Servant
Hmmm.
Her virginity was unlike any other in history, for she was the perfect and complete virgin, the ever-virgin. St John of Damascus says in his homily on the Birth of the Theotokos that she was "ever-virgin in mind, and in soul, and in body." and later, he calls her "spotless". By virtue of this ever-virginity she was free of personal transgressions, free from the passions, execpt for death and those that the Fathers call the "natural and blameless passions" like eating. Her death, according to the acts of the Orthodox council of Jersusalem, was "not due to sins but only to the other natural causes which mankind has, being subject to corruptibility efen before sinning...She was human and subject to death." Her virginity was a condition of her whole person, not only of her body for as St John of Damascus says in his encomium on the Dormition, "She was wholly united to God...Her soul AND her body bore God".
That's not my opinion.
Her virginity was unlike any other in history, for she was the perfect and complete virgin, the ever-virgin. St John of Damascus says in his homily on the Birth of the Theotokos that she was "ever-virgin in mind, and in soul, and in body." and later, he calls her "spotless". By virtue of this ever-virginity she was free of personal transgressions, free from the passions, execpt for death and those that the Fathers call the "natural and blameless passions" like eating. Her death, according to the acts of the Orthodox council of Jersusalem, was "not due to sins but only to the other natural causes which mankind has, being subject to corruptibility efen before sinning...She was human and subject to death." Her virginity was a condition of her whole person, not only of her body for as St John of Damascus says in his encomium on the Dormition, "She was wholly united to God...Her soul AND her body bore God".
That's not my opinion.
Upvote
0
I hope you guys don't mind a question. An online source quotes this from Bishop Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Church" :
The Orthodox Church calls Mary All-Holy; it calls her immaculate or spotless (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin.
Here's the site:
Excerpts from the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware
So, is this site wrong, is the quote incorrect? Or is the statement in the book but incorrect? Or is this something where opinion has shifted over the years so some now do not believe that, and in the past all did believe it?
Thanks.
The Orthodox Church calls Mary All-Holy; it calls her immaculate or spotless (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin.
Here's the site:
Excerpts from the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware
So, is this site wrong, is the quote incorrect? Or is the statement in the book but incorrect? Or is this something where opinion has shifted over the years so some now do not believe that, and in the past all did believe it?
Thanks.
Upvote
0
To Narnia59:
That's just what we're arguing about. The Orthodox certainly do do all of these things, but they certainly haven't always done them, and some of us believe we shouldn't.
To Kreikkalainen:
Re: (3) Thank you for pointing out that numbers don’t matter. Scripture does, though, and for the first several centuries, it seems the numbers were also in my favor. The ever-sinlessness of the Theotokos seems only to have dawned on people well into the Byzantine era. How and why? I can imagine a few possibilities. The how perhaps comes from the melodists’ hyperbolic praise, which is innocent if one takes hyperbole for what it is. Unfortunately, people often don’t. The why seems to be that the hyperbolic praise encourages a common human tendency toward goddess-worship, which is the danger here, perhaps not a terribly great danger, considering the weight of all our other traditions. But to outsiders, Protestants in particular, the danger looms large and inhibits our efforts at evangelism.
Re: (6) Kreikkalainen writes, “What I have seen here is a passionate unwillingness to tolerate any praise for the Theotokos…” -- Now this is just the sort of passionate unwillingness I’m talking about. Your statement is patently unfair on two obvious points: (a) What has anyone said against ALL praise for the Theotokos? Where is the evidence that we are unwilling to “tolerate any praise” of her? We are, in point of fact, only arguing against the belief that she never ever sinned, and mostly we’re thinking about before the Incarnation. (b) Several posters on the other side have shown obvious passion in their posts, railing against those with whom they disagree, questioning their Orthodoxy and their credentials, and overstepping the bounds of reasoned debate, as you have here. One who had been passionate has had the decency to confess and repent of it; others have not. But where have I voiced anything other than reasoned disagreement? What words, please, reveal my passion?
Re: (7) This is a very telling nonresponse. I asked for an example of what would be too much praise, and you name not one. You only say that everything the Orthodox do is OK and it doesn’t matter what the RC’s do. Now, obviously, calling Mary God is too much, but what about entreating her as if she were God? That’s what many Orthodox do with they interrupt the deacon to sing out, “Most Holy Theotokos save us!” Amazingly, they do this just when the deacon is directing their attention away from the Theotokos and toward Jesus Christ, the One who really does save us. They never hear that part because they are still calling upon the Theotokos. I could name other examples of hypertrophy. Calling her as “Our Mother” is one, and making her icon the biggest in the building. A while back I came across a book for children on the Divine Liturgy that plainly told its little readers that we come to church “to see Jesus and the Panagia.” Everything in the book was about “Jesus and the Panagia.” They were never mentioned separately. Hypertrophy? You bet.
Re: (8) I should like now to know how you distinguish between veneration/honoring and worship, since there seems to be no limit to your veneration/honoring.
Re: (9) Thank you for conceding that it really doesn’t matter that Mary wasn’t absolute ever-sinless, except that you don’t like it. But why don’t you like it? What’s not to like about it? I gather from this debate that one side has simply grown up with the idea (perhaps reading about Jesus and the Panagia) and naturally resists looking at things differently, even being surprised that anyone Orthodox would look at things differently. But the early Church – indeed, the Apostles themselves -- did look at things differently.
But thank you for your insightful responses. I’m learning a lot.
In Christ,
Dn Patrick
That's just what we're arguing about. The Orthodox certainly do do all of these things, but they certainly haven't always done them, and some of us believe we shouldn't.
To Kreikkalainen:
Re: (3) Thank you for pointing out that numbers don’t matter. Scripture does, though, and for the first several centuries, it seems the numbers were also in my favor. The ever-sinlessness of the Theotokos seems only to have dawned on people well into the Byzantine era. How and why? I can imagine a few possibilities. The how perhaps comes from the melodists’ hyperbolic praise, which is innocent if one takes hyperbole for what it is. Unfortunately, people often don’t. The why seems to be that the hyperbolic praise encourages a common human tendency toward goddess-worship, which is the danger here, perhaps not a terribly great danger, considering the weight of all our other traditions. But to outsiders, Protestants in particular, the danger looms large and inhibits our efforts at evangelism.
Re: (6) Kreikkalainen writes, “What I have seen here is a passionate unwillingness to tolerate any praise for the Theotokos…” -- Now this is just the sort of passionate unwillingness I’m talking about. Your statement is patently unfair on two obvious points: (a) What has anyone said against ALL praise for the Theotokos? Where is the evidence that we are unwilling to “tolerate any praise” of her? We are, in point of fact, only arguing against the belief that she never ever sinned, and mostly we’re thinking about before the Incarnation. (b) Several posters on the other side have shown obvious passion in their posts, railing against those with whom they disagree, questioning their Orthodoxy and their credentials, and overstepping the bounds of reasoned debate, as you have here. One who had been passionate has had the decency to confess and repent of it; others have not. But where have I voiced anything other than reasoned disagreement? What words, please, reveal my passion?
Re: (7) This is a very telling nonresponse. I asked for an example of what would be too much praise, and you name not one. You only say that everything the Orthodox do is OK and it doesn’t matter what the RC’s do. Now, obviously, calling Mary God is too much, but what about entreating her as if she were God? That’s what many Orthodox do with they interrupt the deacon to sing out, “Most Holy Theotokos save us!” Amazingly, they do this just when the deacon is directing their attention away from the Theotokos and toward Jesus Christ, the One who really does save us. They never hear that part because they are still calling upon the Theotokos. I could name other examples of hypertrophy. Calling her as “Our Mother” is one, and making her icon the biggest in the building. A while back I came across a book for children on the Divine Liturgy that plainly told its little readers that we come to church “to see Jesus and the Panagia.” Everything in the book was about “Jesus and the Panagia.” They were never mentioned separately. Hypertrophy? You bet.
Re: (8) I should like now to know how you distinguish between veneration/honoring and worship, since there seems to be no limit to your veneration/honoring.
Re: (9) Thank you for conceding that it really doesn’t matter that Mary wasn’t absolute ever-sinless, except that you don’t like it. But why don’t you like it? What’s not to like about it? I gather from this debate that one side has simply grown up with the idea (perhaps reading about Jesus and the Panagia) and naturally resists looking at things differently, even being surprised that anyone Orthodox would look at things differently. But the early Church – indeed, the Apostles themselves -- did look at things differently.
But thank you for your insightful responses. I’m learning a lot.
In Christ,
Dn Patrick
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2005
- 6,598
- 527
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Dn Patrick,
I feel that it is a valid question to ask anyone who comes here bearing a clerical title what jurisdiction and/or bishop they are under. Using the title or mentioning clerical status in a post implies some level of greater weight to an arguement, being likely seminary trained and/or someone who is supposed to be instructing in the faith. So, what is your background?
I feel that it is a valid question to ask anyone who comes here bearing a clerical title what jurisdiction and/or bishop they are under. Using the title or mentioning clerical status in a post implies some level of greater weight to an arguement, being likely seminary trained and/or someone who is supposed to be instructing in the faith. So, what is your background?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ortho_Cat
Orthodox Christian
I think that like protestants, many Orthodox have developed an acute sense of "Romophobia" that is, an intrinstic predisposition to mistrust and to completely denounce Roman Catholic doctrine or teaching, even if they agree with them in part or whole. Let me give you an example.
Do the Orthodox believe that Mary is a "Co-Redemptrix" or "Mediatrix"? An Orthodox would say, "Of course not! That is fanciful Roman Catholic teaching, which we do not subscribe to!" However, when faced with the definitions underneath the surface of these Latin based words, the orthodox teaching on the subject seems to be very similar, differing perhaps only in semantics. Let us take a look at each of these definitions From Wikipedia:
"The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind."
"The concept of Mediatrix has two meanings: Mary gave birth to the redeemer, who is the fountain of all grace. Therefore she participated in the mediating of grace. A second opinion states that Mary, assumed into heaven, participates in the mediating of divine graces of her son."
Is this teaching really that different from what we teach as Mary's Role in salvation? If so, I ask that you please clearly articulate the differences for me!
Do the Orthodox believe that Mary is a "Co-Redemptrix" or "Mediatrix"? An Orthodox would say, "Of course not! That is fanciful Roman Catholic teaching, which we do not subscribe to!" However, when faced with the definitions underneath the surface of these Latin based words, the orthodox teaching on the subject seems to be very similar, differing perhaps only in semantics. Let us take a look at each of these definitions From Wikipedia:
"The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind."
"The concept of Mediatrix has two meanings: Mary gave birth to the redeemer, who is the fountain of all grace. Therefore she participated in the mediating of grace. A second opinion states that Mary, assumed into heaven, participates in the mediating of divine graces of her son."
Is this teaching really that different from what we teach as Mary's Role in salvation? If so, I ask that you please clearly articulate the differences for me!
Upvote
0
a.d.ivNonasNovembres
I don't know anything
I always thought in a sense when Jesus gave her to John to look after and said "behold thy mother" he was on one level giving her to the whole church.
But now that I think about it I can't remember if I ever heard that said or just thought so myself... because it's not like John particularly represents the church or that this was addressed to the apostles in general. Actually now I think about it was it even John?
LOL. My tagline is so true.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Kreikkalainen
You can't spell or pronounce me
Hello Dn Patrick 
I always enjoy a good discussion.
Point 3. So in your view Scripture says the Theotokos sinned? Can you elaborate, as to where, how...? Also, in the first few centuries you say "numbers were in your favor". Can you elaborate on that too? It's been mentioned earlier on this thread and elsewhere that St John Chrysostomos wrote the Theotokos may have sinned (which of course is different from saying, the Theotokos sinned). Do you have other examples? You mention problems with your evangelism - in the USA I assume - I should not and will not comment on that, since neither was I born nor do I or did I or will I ever live in the USA & your local problems should be solved by local minds. I will say however that as a matter of principle, I don't think it would be a good idea to go as far as dropping prayers, deleting services etc to make the "Faith that established the universe" more easily digestable to background X or background Y. What would you say, for example, if someone working towards evangelising roman catholics said that we ought to declare the Theotokos sinless by dogma, just to make Orthodoxy more appealing to catholics? Would you be happy about that? I mean, our faith is our faith & I don't think it should be tailored to one or the other background for the sake of increasing our numbers at all cost. But again that's just me and what do I know.
Point 6. Yes, you are right, I got out of my way, apologies. Hey, no discussion is good enough without some heat. Can I ask though, if you say you are willing to accept SOME praise for the Theotokos, how much is that? Where are YOUR limits? I believe I have defined mine: the prayers of the Church are in, everything else is suspicious.
Point 7. I think in turn you are being a bit unfair here. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough in my answer. You asked what would be too much praise & I basically approached the issue by saying that the prayers of the Church aren't too much praise or too little praise, they are just right, and everything beyond and outside that is dangerous & suspicious of being too much (or too little). Did I spell it out better this time?
I didn't even say that everything any Orthodox does is OK. I said the services that the Church prescribes are OK, both (primarily) because the Church which (I repeat) is our authority, prescribes them, and also because they have passed the test of time - they have manifested generations upon generations of saints. May I also humbly suggest that, from my own discussions (and may I add here that I have lived and worked in three primarily protestant countries up to now), the main strumbling block of some (most?) protestants is exactly that, accepting the authority of the Church over their individual interpretation of everything that moves. Once they get over that, the honour we ascribe to the Theotokos isn't so hard for them anymore, from the little that I've seen (I am not clergy or a missionary of course, it's just discussions with acquaintances).
As for "Most Holy Theotokos, save us" that some churches / jurisdictions are using, at least where I come from, it has been explained an awful lot of times that it means "...through your intercessions". Frankly, I remember discussions about this & how it should be understood probably since I was like 3 years old. In several parishes the effective synonym "Most Holy Theotokos, pray for us" is used instead, to avoid such misunderstandings. I don't think this is worth arguing about. Don't use it in your parish if it hinders your evangelisation or for any other reason, but at the same time please don't assume that Orthodox christians in parishes that use it think the Theotokos is our saviour... The rest I can't comment, I haven't seen a church with such a big icon of the Theotokos (do you mean the Platytera? if you mean that, it's usually in a place that's hardly visible to the laity & depending on the size of the Church & how much of it is covered with icons, the Pantocrator on the roof is bigger and more visible) and I haven't read the book you mention, but yes children of Orthodox families go to church to pray to Christ, the Panagia and the saints.
Point 8. I guess you are implicitly calling me an idolater by saying there's no limit to my veneration, nevertheless as I said no discussion is good enough without some heat, so let's go on. Now you want me to define veneration vs worship. Define? We don't define. That's what Rome does .
OK, that was a joke. OrthodoxWiki has a nice definition which I think covers me:
Veneration is a way to show great respect and love for the holy. It is to treat something or someone with reverence, deep respect, and honor. Veneration is distinct from worship, for worship is a total giving over of the self to be united with God, while veneration is showing delight for what God has done. There can be confusion because one may venerate what one worships as well as venerate others. Veneration is part of worship to the Orthodox faithful, but they show love and respect to more than the God they worship.
I guess this is basics though. I don't even understand why you are asking. Does the above definition also cover you?
Point 9. You're welcome, but it wasn't difficult for me to "concede" anything. I have discussed this issue before & the idea that for Orthodox theology it doesn't really matter isn't new to me. One thing I don't personally like about the idea of the Theotokos being sinful, is that like we, by the Grace of God & through prayer and sometimes confession, we prepare ourselves to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, even more so do I think that it makes sense to assume that the same Grace would probably have protected Her, who received in Her womb the Incarnate Logos. Sure, we aren't completely sinless when we commune, but also we don't receive the Incarnate Logos. Or rather, sure, we do receive Him mystically, but still I think common sense suggests what happened to Her was incomparably stronger than what is happening to us in every Liturgy, hence it's not unreasonable to assume God's Grace must have protected Her more than we are letting the same Grace prepare us. These are of course personal thoughts, nothing more.
I repeat, so that I am not again accused of introducing new doctrines, when I say protected, I mean in exactly the same way that the Grace of God protects us, you and me. No immaculate conceptions or special treatment or anything.
Another obvious thing that I don't like about the idea of the Theotokos being sinful, is that an awful lot of saints believed otherwise and I'd rather trust them than myself or you (sorry but).
Phew, that was long.
I always enjoy a good discussion
.Point 3. So in your view Scripture says the Theotokos sinned? Can you elaborate, as to where, how...? Also, in the first few centuries you say "numbers were in your favor". Can you elaborate on that too? It's been mentioned earlier on this thread and elsewhere that St John Chrysostomos wrote the Theotokos may have sinned (which of course is different from saying, the Theotokos sinned). Do you have other examples? You mention problems with your evangelism - in the USA I assume - I should not and will not comment on that, since neither was I born nor do I or did I or will I ever live in the USA & your local problems should be solved by local minds. I will say however that as a matter of principle, I don't think it would be a good idea to go as far as dropping prayers, deleting services etc to make the "Faith that established the universe" more easily digestable to background X or background Y. What would you say, for example, if someone working towards evangelising roman catholics said that we ought to declare the Theotokos sinless by dogma, just to make Orthodoxy more appealing to catholics? Would you be happy about that? I mean, our faith is our faith & I don't think it should be tailored to one or the other background for the sake of increasing our numbers at all cost. But again that's just me and what do I know.
Point 6. Yes, you are right, I got out of my way, apologies. Hey, no discussion is good enough without some heat
. Can I ask though, if you say you are willing to accept SOME praise for the Theotokos, how much is that? Where are YOUR limits? I believe I have defined mine: the prayers of the Church are in, everything else is suspicious.Point 7. I think in turn you are being a bit unfair here. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough in my answer. You asked what would be too much praise & I basically approached the issue by saying that the prayers of the Church aren't too much praise or too little praise, they are just right, and everything beyond and outside that is dangerous & suspicious of being too much (or too little). Did I spell it out better this time?
I didn't even say that everything any Orthodox does is OK. I said the services that the Church prescribes are OK, both (primarily) because the Church which (I repeat) is our authority, prescribes them, and also because they have passed the test of time - they have manifested generations upon generations of saints. May I also humbly suggest that, from my own discussions (and may I add here that I have lived and worked in three primarily protestant countries up to now), the main strumbling block of some (most?) protestants is exactly that, accepting the authority of the Church over their individual interpretation of everything that moves. Once they get over that, the honour we ascribe to the Theotokos isn't so hard for them anymore, from the little that I've seen (I am not clergy or a missionary of course, it's just discussions with acquaintances).
As for "Most Holy Theotokos, save us" that some churches / jurisdictions are using, at least where I come from, it has been explained an awful lot of times that it means "...through your intercessions". Frankly, I remember discussions about this & how it should be understood probably since I was like 3 years old. In several parishes the effective synonym "Most Holy Theotokos, pray for us" is used instead, to avoid such misunderstandings. I don't think this is worth arguing about. Don't use it in your parish if it hinders your evangelisation or for any other reason, but at the same time please don't assume that Orthodox christians in parishes that use it think the Theotokos is our saviour... The rest I can't comment, I haven't seen a church with such a big icon of the Theotokos (do you mean the Platytera? if you mean that, it's usually in a place that's hardly visible to the laity & depending on the size of the Church & how much of it is covered with icons, the Pantocrator on the roof is bigger and more visible) and I haven't read the book you mention, but yes children of Orthodox families go to church to pray to Christ, the Panagia and the saints.
Point 8. I guess you are implicitly calling me an idolater by saying there's no limit to my veneration, nevertheless as I said no discussion is good enough without some heat
, so let's go on. Now you want me to define veneration vs worship. Define? We don't define. That's what Rome does .OK, that was a joke. OrthodoxWiki has a nice definition which I think covers me:
Veneration is a way to show great respect and love for the holy. It is to treat something or someone with reverence, deep respect, and honor. Veneration is distinct from worship, for worship is a total giving over of the self to be united with God, while veneration is showing delight for what God has done. There can be confusion because one may venerate what one worships as well as venerate others. Veneration is part of worship to the Orthodox faithful, but they show love and respect to more than the God they worship.
I guess this is basics though. I don't even understand why you are asking. Does the above definition also cover you?
Point 9. You're welcome, but it wasn't difficult for me to "concede" anything. I have discussed this issue before & the idea that for Orthodox theology it doesn't really matter isn't new to me. One thing I don't personally like about the idea of the Theotokos being sinful, is that like we, by the Grace of God & through prayer and sometimes confession, we prepare ourselves to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, even more so do I think that it makes sense to assume that the same Grace would probably have protected Her, who received in Her womb the Incarnate Logos. Sure, we aren't completely sinless when we commune, but also we don't receive the Incarnate Logos. Or rather, sure, we do receive Him mystically, but still I think common sense suggests what happened to Her was incomparably stronger than what is happening to us in every Liturgy, hence it's not unreasonable to assume God's Grace must have protected Her more than we are letting the same Grace prepare us. These are of course personal thoughts, nothing more.
I repeat, so that I am not again accused of introducing new doctrines, when I say protected, I mean in exactly the same way that the Grace of God protects us, you and me. No immaculate conceptions or special treatment or anything.
Another obvious thing that I don't like about the idea of the Theotokos being sinful, is that an awful lot of saints believed otherwise and I'd rather trust them than myself or you (sorry but)
.Phew, that was long
.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
