Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's all about God; Mary being his creature and her honours are honours given to God for the grace he has given to the whole world because Mary said yes and Jesus was born of the Virgin.
If you've read the posts in this thread, you've seen that the Protestants here are not in the least perplexed about it. They've laid out their case with specifics, quotations, and explanations. They're not at all in doubt about it.
Of course, that is the defense that is always given when evidence of the worship of Mary is presented. That doesn't make the claim that it's just "praise" to attribute God-like powers to a saint any more credible.
Does the existence of some Christians who do not believe that Jesus is God change anything about this hymn? Well, no. And neither does the attempt to pass off the sentiments expressed in the hymn as mere reverence ring any truer than words like "honor" and "praise."
As much as it seems there has been focus more so on the theory aspect of showing the importance of Mary, I think what can make a difference is when there's demonstration on the pratical impact on why Mary is important.
Gxg (G²);66253740 said:
Actually, no one has ever said that Mary was Omnipotence or omnipresence- and thus, practically, you missed entirely what others were about when it came to Mary. Please Don't put words in the mouths of others when they are speaking (nor speak on issues without investigation since the article itself never came close to advocating anything you said) - nor do people believe Mary is who gives salvation (as others already addressed earlier if one was paying attention).
Gxg (G²);66258770 said:
And we can avoid the issue all day - but the bottom line is that it is foolish putting words in the mouths of others when ignoring the context of scripture, the context of what others have said and skipping past the meaning of words. That is ignorance - in the same way it'd be ignorant for one to claim the apostles were "worthy of worship" because they were given the authority to forgive sins in John 20 (even though it was said to Christ "Who can forgive sins but God alone?!" when working with the man lowered through the roof).
Seeing that no one but God alone knows the hearts of others, it doesn't matter what others think on the issue - and thus, when others already note they do not worship anyone but God, there are zero excuses as to why others cannot be sensible in leaving the issue alone instead of claiming "Well, you're making others think you're doing this" - if people say "We don't worship when we say this", that's the end of it and all further accusations need to be dropped. The bottom line is people need to get over it and move on instead of insisting others use langauge the way they think is right.
Seeing that every criticism made on the issue of the lyrics already divorces itself directly from the Church of Antiquity. This is a huge battle that Reformed Churches have long had to deal with when it comes to seeing divorcing the practices of what the Early Church and Councils said on issues from the language used by others. When one ignores the practices done to give illustration to the language/symbolism used by people, you end up with making the language mean anything you want it to mean - and thus, begin accusing instead of seeing what others actually said.
No one said or assumed that either side cares to change because of a post - that was never in view for anyone when they posted something in agreement with others that made a point. If someone chooses to post something and others agree with it, that's all there is to it - and seeing where others with a differing view than a post actually did change views as has occurred before, it's not even accurate claiming things don't change because of what someone posts.
No one's done that. The lyrics were presented, quoted, right up front; and no Catholic has denied that they are genuine.Gxg (G²);66259003 said:
That's true, but it wasn't my point that anyone had said or assumed as much. The fact is, though, that we fall into debating these things as though that's going to happen.
No one's done that. The lyrics were presented, quoted, right up front; and no Catholic has denied that they are genuine.
And seeing where other Orthodox already quoted where the lyrics themselves were used in the Early Church, alongside other examples of similar hymns based on what the Church Fathers said (more in Small Paraklesis to the Most Holy Theotokos - Orthodox Christian info. ), it is again inconsequential to addressing the fact that words were placed in the mouths of others - several Orthodox have already been accused of worshipping Mary for supporting the Hymn (including the author of the OP) and that was called out directly - just as other Catholics have noted the same. Of course Catholics have not denied the lyrics are genuine - just as Orthodox have done the same. Those particular kinds of phrases were the things I could not sing, I skipped those prayers, etc. The abbreviated form sounds very controversial, taken at face value. I understand hesitation or complete refusal on the part of one who only hears and considers those parts.
I've looked at a lot of the hymns, and what strikes me is that one moment I will think something is being stated about or asked of the Theotokos that ought not be ... then in the next line I will realize that the focus has shifted to Christ, or the Father.
The hymns in our Church continually refocus on Christ. Continually.
Another thing I found interesting, since the liturgy today was for the Dormition, the Gospel reading was the passage where Jesus refutes the blessing pronounced on Mary and says "These are my mother and brothers" - the ones who hear the Word of God and do it.
That struck me as an odd choice for a feast day devoted to the Theotokos. But then I heard a priest later today say that ALL of the Marian feasts have this as the Gospel reading, for precisely the reason of reminding us NOT to place even the Theotokos in a position reserved only for God - we do not worship her.Indeed, these hymns and prayers will often bounce back and forth. I agree with you especially with your last point.
"We" is not collective, of course. For many don't go into discussion assuming people are going to change because of a post and yet they are also open to listening, discussion and knowing that people can be changed...with possibility that it may happen. This has happened several times before in discussions - and others have noted that before. I'm glad for other Orthodox who did such when I was investigating things and hearing both sides.
Gxg (G²);66259323 said:
Doesn't that ever strike any Catholic debater as helpful, interesting, or something...BUT NOT the final word??
Seeing that the majority of the Church is never "some people" anymore than it was "some people" who felt Mary was the "Mother of God" at the Council of Ephesus and many other hymns celebrating/praising her in the SAME manner as the hymn of the OP.
Nothing about God's word, of course, but what this or that "Early Church Father" might have commented at one time or another.
Doesn't that ever strike any Catholic debater as helpful, interesting, or something...BUT NOT the final word??
When divorcing oneself from the Church in the practices they did, one also tends to do the same in divorcing understanding God's Word in the same way that the Early Church did.
That's neat the way you changed the subject there from what some individuals might have said to what a council found...and from the lyrics in this hymn to something much more benign, like Mary being the Mother of God which I not only didn't mention but don't have any problem with.Gxg (G²);66259829 said:
