Seriously considering conversion - some questions

[Jesus4Madrid]

well, we call her spotless and sinless, but that is in relation to the rest of us, and it is by grace not by nature. compared to her Son, she still needed a savior. and yeah it was for me when I started looking, but you don't hear it that much. usually she is called the Theotokos (God bearer).

One of the things that turned me off as a Protestant about Roman Catholicism, apart from some major theological issues, was the seeming obsession they have with Mary. Every major Papal pronouncement will have some reference to her, at least in a closing paragraph. By contrast, what I have found in Orthodoxy is that every discussion about the Theotokos seems to end up talking about us. My Opus Dei wife pointed this out as we were listening to some talks by Thomas Hopko on the Dormition fast and I think she is right. Mary is our "great example", not the "great exception" as she seems to be in Roman Catholicism. In a very real, spiritual sense, we can become "God bearers" following the example of the Theotokos. So she is a sort of icon of us.

I think your definition of her sinlessness as being relative is quite sensible, especially since this is not dogma and there is a certain ambiguity in Orthodoxy as to what this really means. Often the Fathers and sometimes our hymns speak of her as "spotless", referring to her virginity or relative purity.

 

[buzuxi02]

Wouldn't that imply that it should be postponed, since, per the Nicene creed "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."?

We are not pelagianists. In infant baptism there are no personal sin, but we are still born with the fruits of ancestral sin. Those fruits are forgotten, hence baptism is the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation.
Scripture says that all who passed through the Red Sea were baptized and all drank from that spiritual rock who was Christ. The Hebrews did not abandon there babies in Egypt, all were baptized.

Christ himself was baptized unto John's baptism of remission of sins yet Christ was without sin. Christ said to his apostles not to hinder the children that were coming to him, thus they are not hindered from putting on Christ through the regenerative waters. Nor is a person of any age that suffers from retardation or mental illness who cannot competently understand the faith hindered from baptism .

Hence its entire households that are baptized including the slaves. Abraham was commanded that all males including slaves who lived under his roof to be circumsized. In Acts Paul says he can preach and baptise the centurion entire family without ever asking what the composition of that household was.

 

[katherine2001]

Because I was baptized in the RCC but was unrepentant until much later, which seemed wrong to me.

Babies were part of the covenant in the OT. Why would God (who is the same yesterday, today and forever) all of a sudden decide that babies are not to be part of His covenant? The EO commune infants as well since they are full members of the Church after baptism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That's right, brother. I always notice that the Blessed Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary is almost always portrayed WITH Our Lord. She's always holding Him as a child or with Him in some capacity. Sometimes she is alone, but that's not the norm. She and the Lord are more of a packaged deal and we may adore her and ask her intercession, but we don't find it important to lay down heavy theological speculation about her and try to add one new devotion to her after the other along with modern declarations about her 1,800 years after the fact!

I find our devotion to her very healthy and edifying. It's odd, but I pray to her ten times more as an Orthodox Christian than I did as a Catholic!

One of the things that turned me off as a Protestant about Roman Catholicism, apart from some major theological issues, was the seeming obsession they have with Mary. Every major Papal pronouncement will have some reference to her, at least in a closing paragraph. By contrast, what I have found in Orthodoxy is that every discussion about the Theotokos seems to end up talking about us. My Opus Dei wife pointed this out as we were listening to some talks by Thomas Hopko on the Dormition fast and I think she is right. Mary is our "great example", not the "great exception" as she seems to be in Roman Catholicism. In a very real, spiritual sense, we can become "God bearers" following the example of the Theotokos. So she is a sort of icon of us.

I think your definition of her sinlessness as being relative is quite sensible, especially since this is not dogma and there is a certain ambiguity in Orthodoxy as to what this really means. Often the Fathers and sometimes our hymns speak of her as "spotless", referring to her virginity or relative purity.

 

[FreedByte]

well, we call her spotless and sinless, but that is in relation to the rest of us, and it is by grace not by nature. compared to her Son, she still needed a savior. and yeah it was for me when I started looking, but you don't hear it that much. usually she is called the Theotokos (God bearer).

That is good I think theotokos is a much more appropriate title.

 

[FreedByte]

well, do you need to wait until someone becomes sick to give them medicine? no you don't. we get flu shots and mists before the flu season. think of it more as fallenness makes you sick, and you need healing rather than you violated God's contract (not to discount the juridical language because it is there).

true, true

 

[FreedByte]

One of the things that turned me off as a Protestant about Roman Catholicism, apart from some major theological issues, was the seeming obsession they have with Mary. Every major Papal pronouncement will have some reference to her, at least in a closing paragraph. By contrast, what I have found in Orthodoxy is that every discussion about the Theotokos seems to end up talking about us. My Opus Dei wife pointed this out as we were listening to some talks by Thomas Hopko on the Dormition fast and I think she is right. Mary is our "great example", not the "great exception" as she seems to be in Roman Catholicism. In a very real, spiritual sense, we can become "God bearers" following the example of the Theotokos. So she is a sort of icon of us.

I think your definition of her sinlessness as being relative is quite sensible, especially since this is not dogma and there is a certain ambiguity in Orthodoxy as to what this really means. Often the Fathers and sometimes our hymns speak of her as "spotless", referring to her virginity or relative purity.

 

[FreedByte]

We are not pelagianists. In infant baptism there are no personal sin, but we are still born with the fruits of ancestral sin. Those fruits are forgotten, hence baptism is the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation.
Scripture says that all who passed through the Red Sea were baptized and all drank from that spiritual rock who was Christ. The Hebrews did not abandon there babies in Egypt, all were baptized.

This is an excellent set of points

Christ himself was baptized unto John's baptism of remission of sins yet Christ was without sin. Christ said to his apostles not to hinder the children that were coming to him, thus they are not hindered from putting on Christ through the regenerative waters.

I have to say that the "not hindering children" line of reasoning really doesn't go anywhere for a credobaptist, since credobaptists believe that they are the ones upholding this verse since they allow children to come to Him and make their own decision, rather than bringing Him to them.

Nor is a person of any age that suffers from retardation or mental illness who cannot competently understand the faith hindered from baptism .

Hence its entire households that are baptized including the slaves. Abraham was commanded that all males including slaves who lived under his roof to be circumsized. In Acts Paul says he can preach and baptise the centurion entire family without ever asking what the composition of that household was.

Yes, the circumcision parallel argument is the one that makes it most clear to me.

 

[FreedByte]

Babies were part of the covenant in the OT. Why would God (who is the same yesterday, today and forever) all of a sudden decide that babies are not to be part of His covenant? The EO commune infants as well since they are full members of the Church after baptism.

I agree with and understand paedocommunion, I was simply explaining why I had rejected infant baptism previously.

 

[FreedByte]

As an additional question: do orthodox frown upon the creation of statues as much as protestants do? Is it the orthodox understanding of Exodus 20:4-6 that creating and/or bowing to statues is forbidden?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It's not a frowning so to speak, just a consistency of tradition. Iconography was always the great craft of the East that created windows to heaven and a powerful means to express the beauty of the saints who have come into Christ's uncreated Light. It is the art form of the East and has just remained consistently the main venerated art form. The West always had more of a penchant for statues than the East.

As an additional question: do orthodox frown upon the creation of statues as much as protestants do? Is it the orthodox understanding of Exodus 20:4-6 that creating and/or bowing to statues is forbidden?

 

[FreedByte]

It's not a frowning so to speak, just a consistency of tradition. Iconography was always the great craft of the East that created windows to heaven and a powerful means to express the beauty of the saints who have come into Christ's uncreated Light. It is the art form of the East and has just remained consistently the main venerated art form. The West always had more of a penchant for statues than the East.

I see. This is kind of a bummer to me (at least the first part, that it's not frowned upon) because I think God is clear in Exodus that we are not to make graven images.

 

[buzuxi02]

A graven image is 3-dimensional which we don't have. Although God did command to make statues of two-headed creatures to place in the temple.

 

[FreedByte]

A graven image is 3-dimensional which we don't have.

 

[buzuxi02]

As an additional question: do orthodox frown upon the creation of statues as much as protestants do? Is it the orthodox understanding of Exodus 20:4-6 that creating and/or bowing to statues is forbidden?

There were statues in the empire so they were never forbidden. Just like there are statues in the nations Capitol in architectural features etc. The 7th ecumenical council speaks of venerating images made of paints, colors, on walls etc. The canons speak of icons being written or painted. There simply is no traditional in the east of venerating statues. They existed soley as artistic expressions but had/have no value as theological expressions, seldomly found in churches, they simply have no liturgical role. There's theological reasons behind it as well as historical as expressed by Gurney

 

[FreedByte]

There were statues in the empire so they were never forbidden. Just like there are statues in the nations Capitol in architectural features etc. The 7th ecumenical council speaks of venerating images made of paints, colors, on walls etc. The canons speak of icons being written or painted. There simply is no traditional in the east of venerating statues. They existed soley as artistic expressions but had/have no value as theological expressions, seldomly found in churches, they simply have no liturgical role. There's theological reasons behind it as well as historical as expressed by Gurney

ah i see, thanks!

 

[MrJim]

Very good thread, nice to read reasoned conversation.

I've been something of a seeker into EO for a few years, taking lots of time at it. I took a little over a year away from going to DL and reading much EO stuff in trying to find "another way" but find myself back at their doorstep...

 

[FreedByte]

Very good thread, nice to read reasoned conversation.

I've been something of a seeker into EO for a few years, taking lots of time at it. I took a little over a year away from going to DL and reading much EO stuff in trying to find "another way" but find myself back at their doorstep...

Good to hear!

Also, what is DL?

 

[Knee V]

I think the questions directed at me after my last post have pretty much been answered by other people. If not, bring the unanswered ones back to my attention.

Icons are set within a particular context. The saint or saints being drawn have a background behind them and some words to clarify who or what is in the icon. The background and "scenery" in the icon are theologically specific and make a theological point. The icon as a whole is a theological expression, and they help teach the faoth just as much as our hymns and prayers do. They're sort of like "painted hymns".

Statues cannot do any of that.

 

[Knee V]

Good to hear!

Also, what is DL?

That's webspeak for Divine Liturgy.