The Assumption of Mary

[Thekla]

In the EO, there are 7 hours of prayer (inherited from Jewish tradition) as well as the midnight office. Most of the EO I know keep at the minimum the morning and evening prayers, as well as personal prayer and the Jesus Prayer (prayer and contemplation dedicated to Christ). (The texts of these "Prayer hours" is called the Horologion.)

The prayers/hymns re: the Theotokos are typically in addition to these prayers - and the prayers/hymns to the Theotokos additionally occur within a context. First occur the prayers to God - ie we "locate" ourselves within the Kingdom of God. Selected Psalms are always included in any prayer cycle. Additional hymns (as the Psalms are chanted as hymns) recounting the effect of God's grace poured out and demonstrated in the life of (any Saint - for the commemoration of a Saint is to recall the victory of Christ in a person's life and living) the Theotokos are preceded by and interspersed with hymns/prayers to God and recountings of the majesty, glory and salvific work of God in the world. The incarnation (a part of the seamlessly woven together method God willed for our salvation) was not possible without human acceptance - the Theotokos accepted.

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household Eph 2:19

But our citizenship is in heaven. And We eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, Phil 3:20

If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 1 Cor 12:26


I am not familiar with the hymns that have been quoted, but they have indeed been removed from their proper context - if there is a continuity with the EO practice, these hymns do not "stand alone". Thus, it is easy to misunderstand them.

They are also wrested away from the context of understanding -- it is understood that:
1. Only God is the true source of every blessing, and the source of every answered prayer.
2. the Theotokos does not "act on her own" (did she conceive Christ without the action of God ? No, of course not ! So why would we understand her to act "on her own" in any other capacity - to think that anyone does think this is irrational; we all know the Scripture account of the Annunciation.)
3. the statements re: the Theotokos are not made in comparison to God ! She is compared to other humans. Did God ask of any other human what He asked of her ? To participate in the very method He willed to return us to Him ? In some way, we are all asked this of Him, but not in the unrepeatable for all eternity way that the Theotokos participated.

Without context, without understanding, and without the recollection that we have our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven - which includes God and all the citizens of the Kingdom - of course the hymns will seem absurd or worse.

 

[Slaol121]

...people go to the sidelines to get only specific prayers they want to analyze and ignore the core and heart of our worship, and then cast stones to the whole...

If a married man decides to have a "sideline girlfriend", does this not change the heart of his "main relationship" to his wife?

 

[laconicstudent]

If a married man decides to have a "sideline girlfriend", does this not change the heart of his "main relationship" to his wife?

Its pretty obvious that that isn't how Narnia was using the term.

 

[narnia59]

If a married man decides to have a "sideline girlfriend", does this not change the heart of his "main relationship" to his wife?

Of course it would.

But it would appear that in order to prevent the possibility of such a violation of his marital covenant, the answer of many here would be that he must not be allowed to lay eyes on or converse with another woman for the rest of his life. He must be totally, 100% focused on his wife, and only his wife every day of his life, 24x7, and anything less than that is being unfaithful to his wife.

But wait, there's still male friends. But surely they aren't needed either, and any time spent with them would take away from time spent with her, so he obviously doesn't love her the way he should. If he did he wouldn't have need of any others or anything to distract him from 100% focus on her and her alone. Even a conversation with a male is being unfaithful, because it takes the focus off of her and her alone, does it not?

The man could make a reasonable case that he is totally 100% faithful to his wife, in control of his passions, and his covenant relationship with his wife might even benefit from the gift of the presence of others in his life in the appropriate context and intent. Nonetheless, there most certainly would be those who would make the case that any time spent not totally 100% focused on her would be "setting her aside" in favor of another, and not putting her first as she always should be.

So that golf game with the guys is now equivalent to adulterly.

Yep, that makes logical sense.

 

[narnia59]

Its pretty obvious that that isn't how Narnia was using the term.

"Obvious" escapes some more easily than others.

 

[Thekla]

If a married man decides to have a "sideline girlfriend", does this not change the heart of his "main relationship" to his wife?

Different issue - isn't Mary your sister in Christ ? Isn't Christ the Bridegroom ? Aren't those in the body of Christ one body ?

Do you suppose there are "icky in-laws" in the Kingdom of Heaven, or - as God is love - is there also love in the Kingdom of Heaven ?

If you love God with all your heart, will you not love those He loves ?

 

[Slaol121]

Different issue - isn't Mary your sister in Christ ? Isn't Christ the Bridegroom ? Aren't those in the body of Christ one body ?

Mary was our sister in Christ, before she died - or, if she didn't die (as those who wrote centuries after her claim) - there is nothing that Jesus said, or did, that would indicate that Mary is to have the exalted place she now holds within certain circles of Christianity.

Christ is the bridegroom - and, as the bride, I believe that the Church is to be completely faithful to Him. With so much time devoted to Mary - chapels being built, hymns written, entire processions complete with statues adorned with flowers - there lies the danger that the real focus of our worship (Jesus) becomes less important.

 

[Slaol121]

Of course it would.

But it would appear that in order to prevent the possibility of such a violation of his marital covenant, the answer of many here would be that he must not be allowed to lay eyes on or converse with another woman for the rest of his life. He must be totally, 100% focused on his wife, and only his wife every day of his life, 24x7, and anything less than that is being unfaithful to his wife.

But wait, there's still male friends. But surely they aren't needed either, and any time spent with them would take away from time spent with her, so he obviously doesn't love her the way he should. If he did he wouldn't have need of any others or anything to distract him from 100% focus on her and her alone. Even a conversation with a male is being unfaithful, because it takes the focus off of her and her alone, does it not?

The man could make a reasonable case that he is totally 100% faithful to his wife, in control of his passions, and his covenant relationship with his wife might even benefit from the gift of the presence of others in his life in the appropriate context and intent. Nonetheless, there most certainly would be those who would make the case that any time spent not totally 100% focused on her would be "setting her aside" in favor of another, and not putting her first as she always should be.

So that golf game with the guys is now equivalent to adulterly.

Yep, that makes logical sense.

You are misunderstanding what I meant. Jesus, as the bridegroom, is an omnipotent God - completely able to supply all our needs.

The very act of going to places like Lourdes in order to seek miracles from the Virgin Mary is equivalent, in my view, to telling Jesus directly that His power is not enough to meet my needs. It's seeking gratification outside of the [already perfect] marital arrangement - it is metaphorical adultery.

 

[Thekla]

Mary was our sister in Christ, before she died - or, if she didn't die (as those who wrote centuries after her claim) - there is nothing that Jesus said, or did, that would indicate that Mary is to have the exalted place she now holds within certain circles of Christianity.

Christ is the bridegroom - and, as the bride, I believe that the Church is to be completely faithful to Him. With so much time devoted to Mary - chapels being built, hymns written, entire processions complete with statues adorned with flowers - there lies the danger that the real focus of our worship (Jesus) becomes less important.

The naming of Churches is not confined to Mary - and naming Churches helps to identify their "location" (this place as opposed to that place).

But it has a further and deeper meaning. The word "episkopos" is used in the NT; an existing term was used to describe the office and action of bishop. In its established secular meaning, the office of episkopos already had a long history. The episkopos had a dual role; to ensure that a newly conquered territory remained faithful to the ruler, and also to demonstrate that the newly conquered territory belonged to the conquering ruler.

"For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop/Episkopos of your souls." 1 Peter 2:25

The naming of a Church for a Saint is in fact a flag lifted in the victory of Christ -- that our King has "conquered" and is victorious in the life of the Saint for whom the Church is named. It is a celebration of the victory of Christ. A 'territory conquered' by Jesus Christ -- His victory wrought in the life and person of the Saint.

There is also this - in loving God, we come to love Whom He loves. We honor those He honors: "If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." 1 Cor 12:26 Yes, there are different cultural expressions of love and honor - and some may be unfamiliar to you, as you are unaccustomed to them. This does not make them wrong, but instead not readily interpreted by your experience.

If we are completely faithful to God, we will love whom He loves, and honor those He honors. "The righteous will be in everlasting remembrance." Psalm 112:6

 

[narnia59]

You are misunderstanding what I meant. Jesus, as the bridegroom, is an omnipotent God - completely able to supply all our needs.

The very act of going to places like Lourdes in order to seek miracles from the Virgin Mary is equivalent, in my view, to telling Jesus directly that His power is not enough to meet my needs. It's seeking gratification outside of the [already perfect] marital arrangement - it is metaphorical adultery.

Why wouldn't going to a friend to ask them to pray for you be telling Jesus directly that his power is not enough to meet your needs, be seeking gratification outside the already perfect marital arrangement, and committing metaphorical adultery? Since Jesus is completely able to supply all our needs, why would you "need" the prayers of someone else?

 

[narnia59]

Mary was our sister in Christ, before she died - or, if she didn't die (as those who wrote centuries after her claim) - there is nothing that Jesus said, or did, that would indicate that Mary is to have the exalted place she now holds within certain circles of Christianity.

"Was"?

What does it mean to you when Scripture says that "he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him"

or

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named"

or

"Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

or

"That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."

Why do people continue to divide what Christ has already united, as though he did not conquer death at all?

 

[Zeek]

"Was"?

What does it mean to you when Scripture says that "he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him"

or

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named"

or

"Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him."

or

"That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."

Why do people continue to divide what Christ has already united, as though he did not conquer death at all?

The early Believers knew that their brethren had died....and were asleep as it were....present with the L-rd but absent from the body....they knew there would be a future resurrection....but they did not seek to communicate with those that had died.

1 Thess 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 herefore comfort one another with these words.

No one tries to make up a doctrine, based on the knowledge that the departed Believers are with the L-rd and can therefore be communicated with....it is unbiblical, and was never practiced by the true Fathers of our Faith....we know they are with G-d and will one day have resurrected bodies, along with us...that is our hope, and that causes our sorrow for their departure to be undergirded with a firm hope and solid promise that they will physically live again.

 

[Thekla]

The early Believers knew that their brethren had died....and were asleep as it were....present with the L-rd but absent from the body....they knew there would be a future resurrection....but they did not seek to communicate with those that had died.

1 Thess 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 herefore comfort one another with these words.

No one tries to make up a doctrine, based on the knowledge that the departed Believers are with the L-rd and can therefore be communicated with....it is unbiblical, and was never practiced by the true Fathers of our Faith....we know they are with G-d and will one day have resurrected bodies, along with us...that is our hope, and that causes our sorrow for their departure to be undergirded with a firm hope and solid promise that they will physically live again.

This was inherited from Judaism, as discussed before.
Asking the righteous departed for their prayers is a Jewish practice, many millenia old, never "corrected" by Christ.

 

[narnia59]

The early Believers knew that their brethren had died....and were asleep as it were....present with the L-rd but absent from the body....they knew there would be a future resurrection....but they did not seek to communicate with those that had died.

1 Thess 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 herefore comfort one another with these words.

No one tries to make up a doctrine, based on the knowledge that the departed Believers are with the L-rd and can therefore be communicated with....it is unbiblical, and was never practiced by the true Fathers of our Faith....we know they are with G-d and will one day have resurrected bodies, along with us...that is our hope, and that causes our sorrow for their departure to be undergirded with a firm hope and solid promise that they will physically live again.

Upon what do you base your premise that this was not practiced by the true Fathers of the faith?

And how do you interpret the author of Hebrews when they say that we have come to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, if we are supposed to have no contact with them?

Why does Scripture refer to us as 'one' family, along with those in heaven, if in reality we are not?

Why does Scripture say that Christ has united heaven and earth unto himself, if in reality we are not united at all?

Why does Scripture say there is no division in the body of Christ, if in reality there is a division?

 

[Chaplain David]

MOD HAT ON

Let's stay on topic. The title of this thread and the OP is "The Assumption of Mary" located here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7535482/#post56746528 - Thank you, Sacerdote, Moderator

MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[Zeek]

This was inherited from Judaism, as discussed before.
Asking the righteous departed for their prayers is a Jewish practice, many millenia old, never "corrected" by Christ.

That is just not true...at least not in the way you try to claim Thekla...Scripture would be rife with references and practical examples if it was practiced for millenia, and we wouldn't be discussing it....one doesn't build doctrine on a single oblique reference, or expect a common and accepted practice to have been omitted.

There were many Jewish practices that were unbiblical...some seem to have been acceptable, and others that actually went against good teaching and instruction were rejected by Jesus and the Apostles, but retained in Judaism...especially things relating to fables and esoteric teachings as found in the Zohar or Kabbalah

 

[Zeek]

Upon what do you base your premise that this was not practiced by the true Fathers of the faith?

Primarily because it was not taught, it wasn't even recorded and the actual practice goes against sound doctrine, becoming a distraction and an unnecessary side-show with further bad implications.

And how do you interpret the author of Hebrews when they say that we have come to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, if we are supposed to have no contact with them?

They were one of a list of the Heavenly Assembly....and Paul is exhorting us to see by faith what lies ahead, where we are going, and those who have already run the race...he is not commending that we communicate with them, but that we know that where they are, where the Angels are etc is where we are headed....Paul is getting us to use our eyes of faith, and not grow weary and take our eyes off the hope before us.

Why does Scripture refer to us as 'one' family, along with those in heaven, if in reality we are not?

You are making a presumption that because they are dead and with the L-rd I don't see them as part of the One Family...but I do, and one day I look forward to fellowshipping....but for now what unites us is our common bond of life through faith in Jesus. The mistake I believe you and other brethren are making is that you take a few verses that show we are all alive in Messiah, and then use that to justify the doctrine of praying to them....but we are never encouraged to do that....ever.

Why does Scripture say that Christ has united heaven and earth unto himself, if in reality we are not united at all?

Same sort of thing...we are united through Jesus...but we are not in direct communication with the dead who are aslepp in Messiah, but with the living.

Why does Scripture say there is no division in the body of Christ, if in reality there is a division?

You don't seem to differentiate between actually being physically dead and alive in Messiah...the Bible doesn't promote unreality....those that have died are dead....yes their spirits are with the L-rd....but their bodies are in the ground on planet Earth.
Death doesn't divide our unity as One Body....but death does separate us for the moment....and we are not to try and seek favours and blessing from the dead.....which in any case they can't give. (but deceiving spirits are only too willing to help out, together with erroneous teaching, and spiritual gullibility)

In deference to the request of Sacerdote, I will make this the last reply and let the thread get back on to the idea that Mary was assumed into Heaven...something I don't really think took place and think is really part of extended evolving Catholic doctrine...but then I don't see Mary as sinless, or my Mother either.

 

[sheina]

In deference to the request of Sacerdote, I will make this the last reply and let the thread get back on to the idea that Mary was assumed into Heaven...something I don't really think took place and think is really part of extended evolving Catholic doctrine...but then I don't see Mary as sinless, or my Mother either.

I'm in agreement with this. Mary was not assumed into Heaven, nor was she sinless nor is she my mother. There is no Scripture to back up any of these teachings.

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm in agreement with this. Mary was not assumed into Heaven, nor was she sinless nor is she my mother. There is no Scripture to back up any of these teachings.

So where are her relics, Sheina?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I'm sure her relics have turned to dust since she died over 2000 years ago.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.