There's something about Mary.......

[Standing Up]

There's something about Mary that I'd like to know. Many of you may find this question naive, but to me it's critical: Did Mary have a choice?

I'd agree she did have a choice. Much as everyone else has a free choice to believe God or not.

 

[Thekla]

Do you have something more concrete?

Sub Tuum (dated to 250 ad, mentioned in my post - above)

 

[Standing Up]

Sub Tuum (dated to 250 ad, mentioned in my post - above)

Some dispute the dating. Some dispute the usurping.

Two translations:

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

Beneath thy mercy,
we take refuge, O Virgin Theotokos:
disdain not our supplications in our distress,
but deliver us from perils,
O only pure and blessed one.

A person may fly to her, to the one who is thought the only pure and blessed. But she will not deliver. She cannot deliver. She was created.

Christians will take refuge with the LORD Jesus Christ; my God in whom I trust. Under His wings I trust. He is my shield. He answers my petitions and He delivers me from evil. I know His name and He promises to show me His salvation.

Psalm 91
He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD, [He is] my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, [and] from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth [shall be thy] shield and buckler.

Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; [nor] for the arrow [that] flieth by day; [Nor] for the pestilence [that] walketh in darkness; [nor] for the destruction [that] wasteth at noonday.

A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; [but] it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.

Because thou hast made the LORD, [which is] my refuge, [even] the most High, thy habitation; There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I [will be] with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

 

[Coralie]

OK. So if I'm understanding correctly, Solo Scripturists appear to believe that the Church was led by the HS until the Biblical canon was assembled. Then He waved bye-bye until ~200 years ago (depending on who you ask, of course). Fair enough.

That kind of thinking is what led me away from Protestantism in general, so I guess we should agree to disagree.

I can't argue for exact dates re: Marian veneration appearing in ECF writings; I'm not educated enough for that. Anglian might have more info. The Sub Tuum shows that Marian veneration was around pre-canon; I argue that my list of questions still stands.

But perhaps this is more important a question: what exactly are you arguing against, Standing Up?

Are you annoyed about people asking the BVM for her intercessions? Because saint intercession was mentioned and approved of by St Cyril of Jerusalem as early as 350 AD (Catechetical Letters) for example. The Sub Tuum (thanks Thekla!) attests to how ancient the practice was.

Are you annoyed that some Christians think she was an awesome Christian, who should be remembered and celebrated? That seems weird to me. Even God's own messenger called her "Full-of-Grace" and "blessed".

Are you annoyed by the dense RC Mariology surrounding her? Do you feel it takes away from Christ? If you are, I will bow out of this discussion, since I'm not RC so I can't really comment on that aspect.

What is it that you hate, specifically?

 

[lionroar0]

OK. So if I'm understanding correctly, Solo Scripturists appear to believe that the Church was led by the HS until the Biblical canon was assembled. Then He waved bye-bye until ~200 years ago (depending on who you ask, of course). Fair enough.

That kind of thinking is what led me away from Protestantism in general, so I guess we should agree to disagree.

I couldn't help but noticed the similarities between that kind of thinking in protestanism and deism.

Deism basically states that there is a God and He did create everything. He also gave us humans certian "right" and left us to fend for ourselves.

 

[Standing Up]

OK. So if I'm understanding correctly, Solo Scripturists appear to believe that the Church was led by the HS until the Biblical canon was assembled. Then He waved bye-bye until ~200 years ago (depending on who you ask, of course). Fair enough.

No, the HS was around until the Councils or the Pope or the teaching magesterium or reason or etc, etc, etc was assembled.

That kind of thinking is what led me away from Protestantism in general,

Me too. But frying pan to fire, no thanks.

so I guess we should agree to disagree.

Okay.

I can't argue for exact dates re: Marian veneration appearing in ECF writings; I'm not educated enough for that. Anglian might have more info. The Sub Tuum shows that Marian veneration was around pre-canon;

The trouble is that the two first perfect martyrs Stephen and James son of Zebedee weren't venerated. James was on the 'insided circle'. The first apostle martyred. Perfect example for the practice of invoking a deceased Saint. Let's see, Luke mentions this where in Acts? Paul instructs us? Peter tells us to invoke the deceased apostle? Where does Stephen or James show up as ones worthy to be invoked?

Hundreds of years past supposed Mary. But why Mary then? See Jeremiah 44.

I argue that my list of questions still stands.

Maybe since the first two perfect examples aren't given to us for this practice, you might reconsider.

See, folks can argue for a supposed Mary veneration all they want, but this is easily explained because that practice shows up long ago in Jer. 44. (It's like purgatory. The church learned it too from jewish oral tradition.) What the church so-called needs to do is show when and why the first two perfect Saints weren't given as examples from Apostles or the early church.

But perhaps this is more important a question: what exactly are you arguing against, Standing Up?

Are you annoyed about people asking the BVM for her intercessions? Because saint intercession was mentioned and approved of by St Cyril of Jerusalem as early as 350 AD (Catechetical Letters) for example. The Sub Tuum (thanks Thekla!) attests to how ancient the practice was.

Her intercessions? How about Stephen and James? Queen of heaven intercessions are false.

Are you annoyed that some Christians think she was an awesome Christian, who should be remembered and celebrated? That seems weird to me. Even God's own messenger called her "Full-of-Grace" and "blessed".

Keep in mind that scripture says, strike the Shepherd and all will fall away, including the mother of god.

Are you annoyed by the dense RC Mariology surrounding her? Do you feel it takes away from Christ? If you are, I will bow out of this discussion, since I'm not RC so I can't really comment on that aspect.

What is it that you hate, specifically?

Thanks for asking. I think we don't know the half of it, the extent to which these things have developed over 2000 years from innocent enough origins, sub tuum notwithstanding as it clearly usurps the role of Christ/God.

Deity of Mary was already mentioned in the other thread. Some gasped in disbelief. What do they expect? Just a question of time; folks are already working on co-mediatrix (whatever the semantics are). She's already assumed to have been born sinless, remained sinless, remained a virgin, assumed into heaven, hears 1000s of simultaneous prayers, be omnipresent, intercessor between believer and Christ, dispenser of all grace, etc, etc, etc. The only thing she didn't do was descend into hell, which puts her above her son, btw.

Christ was crucified for me. Not Mary. Not Paul. Not Peter. The apostles and early church did not teach in any form or shape the idea that we should invoke the deceased. But what about Mary? See Jer. 44 if you really want an explanation.

Mary full of grace. Stop there. But we were warned of wolves entering in. Folks want to worship Mary in every way but semanticly, have at it. As for me and my household, we'll follow the Lord God through His Son Jesus Christ.

1 Tim. 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Hbr. 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

One mediator. Not from me to deceased Mary to Jesus to God. One mediator.

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

whilst we wait for our friend to return, can I ask why you seem to have a problem with a practice which goes back further than the Bible canon? You accept the Canon established by the Church. You then try to tell us that intercessory prayer is against Scripture. Do you suppose the Fathers who established the genuine deposit of Scripture had not read it? They practised intercessory prayer and saw no contradiction with Scripture. Nor did anyone before the sixteenth century.

Why do you think that a relatively modern, man made tradition should take precedence over ancient Christian practice?

peace,

Anglian

This practice may go back before the bible cannon but in the bible cannon I see nothing written that supports this practice. The scriptures bring correction and reproof to what is being praciticed. So reading the scripture brings light to this subject and we do not see this as being part of the Apostles teaching in their writings. Therefore it makes one wonder why it is being practiced when we do not see the writings for this practice.

 

[laconicstudent]

We do. The Sub tuum.

YouTube - Akathist Hymn to the Most Holy Theotokos - Ode 1 in English

 

[MamaZ]

Anglian asks a good question, MamaZ. I have read many of your posts, and you never answer this, you simply dismiss it. I can never work out whether you understand what is being asked of you, so I will give it a try myself.

1. The Holy Spirit worked through the early Church fathers to assemble the Bible as we know it. You accept that as inspired, and indeed base your entire worldview on the Bible. Correct?

Answer: I base truth on the scriptures yes.

2. If that is correct, are you saying that the Church fathers were right when they assembled the Bible, but wrong when they venerated Mary?

Answer:
What I suggest is that the scriptures were inspired by God and back then as the scriptures were being compiled for the cannon it was the writings that spoke for themselves. Even as Paul was penning his letters we see that things were going astray. His warnings are very evident in his writings. So now we have the written scriptures we need to take correction and reproof for the practices that are not taught from the pens of the Apostles.


3. If so, how do you come to that conclusion? Was the HS only with the Church some of the time? Not at other times? How do you know which times?

Answer: The HS will bear witness to the Scriptures that have been penned by the Apostles in the NT and others in the OT since they are inspired of God through Him..So if there is something being practiced that does not line up with the written scripture I question it as being truly from the HS..


4. What if [for example] they were wrong in assembling the Bible, but actually right in venerating Mary?
Answer: I don't trust in the men who assembled the cannon of the NT . I do trust in the writings of the cannon of the NT and OT for I know they are inspired by God. I can go back on them for all my beliefs. Knowing that there are three that bear witness. It has been written the fear of men brings a snare.
Or right in both?

Or wrong in both?
God is Faithful. My trust is in Him. Not in man.

5. How do you decide on the answers to 4?
Answer:
By taking all that is being taught and practice back to the writings of the Scripture.

6. Does the Holy Spirit tell you the answer? If so, are you like the Church fathers--right in some things, wrong in others? Or are you infallible?
Answer: The HS bears witness with what has been written. I don't see anything about Mary being what she is called today written in the cannon of scripture. I am not infallible but the writings of scripture I believe are.

This is not intended to be snarky--I honestly want to understand how you can hold such seemingly contradictory views. Perhaps I am missing something.

I didn't take it as snarky..

 

[Musa80]

This practice may go back before the bible cannon but in the bible cannon I see nothing written that supports this practice. The scriptures bring correction and reproof to what is being praciticed. So reading the scripture brings light to this subject and we do not see this as being part of the Apostles teaching in their writings. Therefore it makes one wonder why it is being practiced when we do not see the writings for this practice.

Ahem, what exactly do you think happens in Orthodox churches on Sunday morning? 98% of the Divine Liturgy is directly taken from the Scriptures. I'd wager the average Orthodox hears more Scripture in one Divine Liturgy than the average Protestant in a month of services. If somehow reading the Scriptures shines a huge light on this being an illicit practice, that amounts to claiming that billions of Orthodox for the past two thousand years, who have had nothing but the Scriptures put in front of them have somehow missed this glaring revelation that you think is so obvious.

 

[MamaZ]

Not computer savvy so I have to do it this way.

Pilgrim to Christ wrote

So you only believe in spiritual fatherhood but not spiritual motherhood? St. Paul can be the spiritual father for the faithful under his care but St. Mary cannot be the spiritual mother for the faithful under her care? Why? We can have fathers in the faith but not mothers? No wonder Christianity is always being accused of sexism... Of course, orthodox Christianity embraces spiritual motherhood as equal to spiritual fatherhood. There were deaconesses* (and still are in some places) in the early Church to be spiritual mothers to the women in the flock and nuns/sisters are spiritual mothers to the world (and their abbesses to them) and biological mothers are called also to be the spiritual mothers of their children. Just because God created men and women differently and established the priesthood exclusively for men doesn't mean that women can't be spiritual mothers just as much as men can be spiritual fathers, even though it is in a different way (just as biological mothers and fathers raise their children together but in different ways).

If a deaconess or a nun can be a spiritual mother, why not the Mother of God?

I believe that the Older women are to teach the younger women as scripture instructs. Just as Paul taught those to whom he spoke about in the scripture. But the only one true Father is God.. Only He births His children by His Spirit. We do not come through the womb of Mary. Christ came through the womb of Mary to become Flesh.. The flesh profits nothing..
Pilgrim to Christ wrote

Mary's spiritual motherhood is not in contrast to God's election

This is not what I asked. I asked if you saw in the scriptures I gave anything about Mary being the one who draws us to Christ.

St. Paul is not God the Holy Spirit either. God prefers to work through His creatures. That is why angels exist, that is why God became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary and she clothed him with her flesh and nature, that is why the Church exists.

No Paul is not the HS.. God works with His creation for His glory and not for anothers.. Angels exist because God created them. Are you suggesting this is what Gods reasoning is for creating Angels? Or humans? Gods Church is born through the Spirit.. The Church exists because God has ordained it this way through ,Not Mary, but through His son Christ Jesus. Did Jesus take all His diciples to meet His mother and hold her in veneration?

 

[Anglian]

Cyril 397 I believe it was who you mentioned. When you did, I replied at least twice in the same way as above and each time you more or less ignored it.

It wasn't me, because there is no significance to 397 for me, at least

But, start afresh shall we?

First you said, no one can date the start of the veneration. Then you said, but it predates canonization.

Indeed.

Now, how does one know it predates something when you don't even know when it began? So again, you cited Cyril 397 as your clear proof of veneration of Mary. I replied with Athanasius 367. So, no, off the top of my head, veneration does not predate canonization.

The earliest signs we have of Marian veneration are the Protoevangelion of St. James and the Sub Tuum, both of which predate canonisation - Q.E.D.

Do you have something more concrete?

The Protoevangelion, although never regarded as canonical, was one of the most reproduced works of the second century and was in circulation in the East well into the sixth century - in other words it had a longer life than modern Protestantism.

The earliest fresco of the Blessed Virgin is in the Roman catacombs and is dated to the second century.

As I have said before, this practice is so old, no one can date its beginning; it is so orthodox that no one questioned it (so there is no controversial material before Jovinian, and he was thrown out of Rome by St. Ambrose); and it was universal.

None of that can be said of the practices followed by those who reject Marian veneration.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

This practice may go back before the bible cannon but in the bible cannon I see nothing written that supports this practice. The scriptures bring correction and reproof to what is being praciticed. So reading the scripture brings light to this subject and we do not see this as being part of the Apostles teaching in their writings. Therefore it makes one wonder why it is being practiced when we do not see the writings for this practice.

Well, presumably you believe that those who recognised the sacred books were inspired by the Spirit when they did so? If so, they also practised Marian veneration; had the Spirit stopped inspiring them then?

We see no writing that tells us the names of the 27 books of the NT, so by your logic we should be sceptical of them as the Bible does not tell us what they are

peace,

Anglian

p.s. if you highlight the parts you want to quote and put quote marks round them each time, you, and we, will be able to distinguish which writing is your own and which is that of the post you're responding to

A

 

[MamaZ]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist

Mary and Christ are inseparable. Mary and the Church are inseparable. What we say of her, we say of Christ; what we say of her, we say of the Church. She is the Neck which connects the Head to the Body. Mary is the Image of Christ and the Mirror of the Church.

Yes, this gets a bit mystical. But, otherwise, how can we say both that the Church is the Bride of Christ and also the Body of Christ except that the two become one flesh?
​

One flesh????
​

Originally Posted by Gen 2:21-24

Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.
​

Originally Posted by Eph 5:25-32

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church.
​

Just as the bride of Adam was born from his side, so too is the Bride of Christ born from His side.

Well first we have to understand that Eve was not born from Adams side. She was created from Adams rib as a helpmeet for Adam. We are not created from the rib of Jesus as His bride.. We are born of His Spirit This is why we read this.
1Co 15:45 So also it has been written, "The" first "man", Adam, "became a living soul;" the last Adam a life-giving Spirit. Gen. 2:7
1Co 15:46 But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was out of earth, earthy. The second Man was the Lord out of Heaven. Gen. 2:7
1Co 15:48 Such as is the earthy man, such also are the earthy ones. And such as is the heavenly Man, such also are the heavenly ones.

Originally Posted by Rom 8:35-39

Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? or distress? or famine? or nakedness? or danger? or persecution? or the sword? (As it is written: For thy sake we are put to death all the day long. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) But in all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
​

Nothing but our own faithlessness can separate us from the love of God and who is more faithful than His Holy Mother, the Handmaid of God?

Where do you read nothing but our own faithlessness? I have seen many a woman and man as faithful to God through out the full context of scripture and also in life here as we know it..

you have given me writings of men to proclaim your own position but nothing from the writings of the scripture from the very beginning of what the Apostles taught. I take everything that is being taught to the scripture to see if indeed this is what the Apostles penned.
You have brought scripture into the fact with someone elses interpretation and adding Mary into the mix where the Apostles writings say nothing of Mary in these instances..

 

[Anglian]

you have given me writings of men to proclaim your own position but nothing from the writings of the scripture from the very beginning of what the Apostles taught. I take everything that is being taught to the scripture to see if indeed this is what the Apostles penned. .

And your evidence that what is in the NT is the writings of the Apostles from the beginning is exactly what? Who wrote Hebrews, who wrote II Peter and the Jonannine epistles? You accept these are what they claim to be, but why if you reject the tradition which tells the rest of us that they are inspired?

peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Well, presumably you believe that those who recognised the sacred books were inspired by the Spirit when they did so? If so, they also practised Marian veneration; had the Spirit stopped inspiring them then?

Because God inspired them to put the cannon together does not mean He inspired them to venerate Mary. Just as the donkey spoke what God wanted to say they did not follow after the donkey and eat hay and grass did they? When the scriptures were brought forth and cannonized then correction should have came. Just because they practiced veneration of Mary does not mean that it was inspired of the HS.. Just as Paul had to write to correct many misgivings to the church of Corinth and ect..

We see no writing that tells us the names of the 27 books of the NT, so by your logic we should be sceptical of them as the Bible does not tell us what they are

So by your logic if you do not have a list then you do not know what the Spirit is saying through the written word? We can take the full context of the written scriptures and take a wonderful view and knowledge of God and how he has dealt with sinful men from the earliest of times to the now. We can also see the sinfulness in the OT and learn from them what not to do.. This is why the word is a lamp unto our feet.. The entrance of Gods word brings light.

peace,

Anglian

p.s. if you highlight the parts you want to quote and put quote marks round them each time, you, and we, will be able to distinguish which writing is your own and which is that of the post you're responding to

A

Thanks for teaching me how to do that.. I so appreciate it.

 

[MamaZ]

And your evidence that what is in the NT is the writings of the Apostles from the beginning is exactly what? Who wrote Hebrews, who wrote II Peter and the Jonannine epistles? You accept these are what they claim to be, but why if you reject the tradition which tells the rest of us that they are inspired?

peace,

Anglian

I don't know who really write Hebrews. But what I do know is if you compare Hebrews to the full context of the other written it interprets what others has written and brings a more bigger understanding of what has been written. With the Mary veneration I don't see that in any of the written accounts.. So this is why I question this practice and teaching.

 

[Coralie]

MamaZ, I see what you mean.

You believe that the initial writings of what is now Scripture were inspired, and so you base your life on them.

But you don't believe that the group of people God used to tell us that they were inspired, the Church from which all Christians stem, is to be trusted.

You believe that Scripture is the pillar and ground of Truth.

I, on the other hand, believe that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). And so I trust the Church to safeguard and teach me that Truth, with Scripture as part of it.

If I'm wrong, I humbly submit to God's wrath and hope that He will be merciful to me. I am only trying my best to follow Him.

If I merit eternal punishment for asking Mother Mary to pray for me, I deserve that punishment. If I merit eternal punishment for accepting guidance from the Church, I deserve that punishment. God's justice is perfect.

I hope you understand where I am coming from too. We all love Jesus and we are all doing our best; hopefully our best will be good enough for God. You are my sister in Christ and I love you, even though I don't agree with you.

Thank you for talking to me, and God bless you on your way.

 

[Anglian]

Thanks for teaching me how to do that.. I so appreciate it.

Very happy to.

If I can take the points you make in order:

Because God inspired them to put the cannon together does not mean He inspired them to venerate Mary. Just as the donkey spoke what God wanted to say they did not follow after the donkey and eat hay and grass did they? When the scriptures were brought forth and cannonized then correction should have came. Just because they practiced veneration of Mary does not mean that it was inspired of the HS.. Just as Paul had to write to correct many misgivings to the church of Corinth and ect..

But where is the evidence that anyone needed or tried to correct Marian veneration? There is none. There was more controversy over the make-up of the Canon which you follow than there ever was over Marian veneration. If there was any evidence that the men who canonised Scripture thought it inconsistent with their own Marian veneration, then generations of Protestants would have produced it; there is none. Therefore there is no ground to think that Marian veneration was against the Faith revealed in the Canon.

You go on to write:

So by your logic if you do not have a list then you do not know what the Spirit is saying through the written word? We can take the full context of the written scriptures and take a wonderful view and knowledge of God and how he has dealt with sinful men from the earliest of times to the now. We can also see the sinfulness in the OT and learn from them what not to do.. This is why the word is a lamp unto our feet.. The entrance of Gods word brings light.

Strictly speaking it must be you who takes up the first position. After all, how did the early Christians manage without a New Testament? By AD 90 or so all the Apostles had died and no Church had all the books upon which (alone) you rely. So a MamaZ in AD 110 would have had nothing upon which to base her views - except the teaching of the Church.

No one denies that the Scriptures are vital - but they are not the whole of tradition; neither are they able to be established outside of the tradition of the Church.

Your position is one which the scholar Bart Ehrman used to hold. As he discovered how variable is the evidence that books like II Peter, Jude and Hebrews were by the authors whose name they bear, he turned away from the Faith. If he had followed the teaching of the Church, which alone is the warrant for the genuineness of Scripture, he'd have had no problem.

To use writing which is only warranted as Scripture to establish the practice of the body (the Church) which gives us that warrant is to place logic on its head.

It has already been pointed out to you that early Christians regarded some of the vision of the author of the Apocalypse as referring to the Blessed Virgin, but you simply said that was not your interpretation. So, again, we have the question: why should your interpretation be preferred above that of the Church which established the canon on which you base your views?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Coralie]

Thanks Standing Up. I understand where you're coming from even though I don't agree with all of it. I know you're zealous for the Lord and I appreciate that a lot.

I get what you mean about Stephen etc; the thing is, since I'm not Solo Scriptura, those arguments don't work for me. As far as I remember, saint intercessions were made mainstream when an early, non-Apostle saint (St Polycarp?) appeared in a vision after his martyrdom and told the Church he was praying for them in Heaven. I guess you would think of that as spurious. I hope God forgives me if my trusting the Church is wrong in that instance.

The answers you gave to my questions are similar to MamaZ's in many ways--I guess you have already read my post to her, so you know my view on that. Thanks for answering though.

But back to Mary:

I read your post carefully and I realised a lot (not all) of what you object to is RC Marian dogma (immaculate conception, titles of the BVM, co-mediatrix, etc.), which I don't hold to, so I can't comment on that.

I'm just going to ramble a little and see where it takes me. Please let me know what you think of what I am saying. I want to understand your view.

We EO love Mary, ask her intercessions, and believe that when she prays for us, she prays God's will for us in a very special way, since she has proven herself "God's handmaiden" from the time of the Annunciation at least. She's one of those "righteous [people]" whose prayers avail much. I know this bothers you because she's dead; but we believe all the saints are alive in Christ. I don't think this makes them gods, but rather it reflects a different understanding of how the Body of Christ functions.

We believe she's ever-virgin--but I mean hey, if we're wrong, we're wrong. I don't think God would judge us as idolators for believing she never knew a man, when in fact she did [hypothetically].

I don't believe that the EOC makes Mary into a goddess. Rather, we think she was really awesome and worth remembering and celebrating.

We pray to the Trinity. Sometimes we ask Mary, and other saints, to pray for us too. I thought I should give you an indication of how often we mention/venerate/pray to Mary in practice, and what words we use:

If you go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy (2-3 hours long), you'll see we mention Mary very little; first we mention her in three short verses (in between the Psalms readings-- "Through the intercessions of the Theotokos, O Savior save us") and we sing one short hymn to her later on in the service. It's called the Theotokion:

"It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokos, ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God: more honorable than the cherubim, beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim — without corruption you gave birth to God, the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify you!" Note... this is the only time in the Liturgy [that I can think of] that we address Mary directly.

We also include something at the end of a list of ten or so short prayers: "And remembering our most pure, blessed, and glorious lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and all the Saints, let us commit ourselves and one another, and all our lives, to Christ our God".

Considering the DL's length, that's not that much. We really focus on the Trinity, mostly through Scripture either read, chanted, or set to music.

Our personal devotions are focused on the Lord too: "O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me, a sinner". We don't pray any of the prayers on the Rosary except the Our Father, and a shorter, earlier version of the Hail Mary: "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Savior of our souls". The HM isn't repeated constantly; it's said once.

A personal prayer rule of about 20 prayers 3 x a day might include one or two short intercessory prayers to Mary.

A few times a year, there are services where we sing hymns to the Virgin and to other saints, to remember their lives and what they did to build God's Church. They are not considered nearly as important as the Divine Liturgy, although they are certainly a cherished part of parish life.

Do you think this is too much? To remember and celebrate her like this?

Where, in what I've written above, does the idolatrous transgression come in (if that makes sense, didn't know how else to put it)? Is it all based on the "dead saints don't pray for us" thing, or is it something else?

Thanks for talking to me about this, I appreciate that it's an upsetting subject for you.