when did it start & when did it change

[Anglian]

so... you acknowledge that it was likely written by a liar... but don't mind the content.

interesting!

Dear Uphill Battle,

We must beware of imposing our views on the distant past. It was not uncommon in the first century for works to be attributed to others without there being any intention of deception. Examples here would include the second epistle of St. Peter and the epistle to the Hebrews. The ancient Church knew that the second had come from the Apostolic circle, but few believed it came from Paul; St. Jerome was only persuaded to include it in his canon because St. Athanasius assured him it was accepted in the East. Scholars have their doubts about the whole Johannine corpus as well as James and Jude, so, as lionroar suggests, unless you have some actual evidence unavailable to others to show that these books were written by those whose names they bear, you rely on no more than the Tradition of the Church.

That Tradition has been happy to accept that Apochryphal writings may be read for the edification of the pious, even as it has been happy to accept that John was written by St. John and not another man of the same name.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Chesterton]

so as far as we know it was after Luther then also after Calvin the 1500's so does anyone know of a particular person or article that might have been a early move against the veneration or praying to of Mary?

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed that Mary should be honored and venerated, and I think even believed in her perpetual virginity.

Although we might not find one person, article or date, I’d think that the starting point for the Protestant diminished view of Mary was probably the one idea of her as a mediator. A rejection of that idea could take place without sola Christos and sola scriptura, but a rejection of it seems inevitable once those "solas" were accepted.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Let me see. The Gospel of St Matthew, The book of Revelations attributed to the Apostle St. John. The Gospel of Mark.

The Letter to the Romans. That's off the top of my head.

My question to you is. Since these documents were not signed by the people they are attributted to. How do you know these were not likely written by liars.

I'm asking for objective proof.

Peace

if you're looking for exacting, objective proof, we could discount the entire record of scripture.

But I've never read one credible documentation that challenges the authenticity of the authorship of Romans by Paul, nor Revelation by John.

Hebrews doesn't claim authorship, neither does Matthew, so saying it's the work of a liar isn't really possible.

Scholarly opinion of all of these is that they are authentic. (other than those who seek specifically to discredit scripture, but using them is of no use, we both equally reject them, I'd warrant."

the Protoevamgelion does not enjoy the same distinction. Scholars are in fair agreement that is pseudopigraphical, not of the time of when it is claimed, and to be treated as spurious.

yet the first line is I, James wrote this."

It's the work of an absolute liar. Whomever wrote it was trying to lend authority to his work by claiming to be James. If you need to hide who you are specifically when you write it, you should not be trusted.

and yet, you use it as proof of something you already believe.

frankly, you only accept it because it falls in line with what you already accept.

the fact that it starts with a baldfaced lie is of no moment, because you agree with it's contents.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by lionroar0

Let me see. The Gospel of St Matthew, The book of Revelations attributed to the Apostle St. John. The Gospel of Mark.
​

Heck, it could even be John the Baptist for all I know............

Reve 1:9 I John, the brother of ye and partaker in the affliction and kingdom and endurance in Jesus [*Christ] came to be in the island the being called Patmos because of the Word of the God and the testimony of Jesus [*Christ].

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7167075&page=3
Revelation Chapter 1 Verses

 

[GBTWC]

so whether you all agree on it or not it seems that the protoevangelium of James is the first writing that includes veneration of Mary ?

so on the protestant side does anyone know who or when they started to move away from the traditional view of Mary?

 

[Thekla]

maybe it would be helpful to know what you mean by veneration; I'll need to re-do research, but in the 2/3 century, Irenaeus contrasts Mary and Eve. His work is available online. I'll try to hunt a source in a bit.

 

[GBTWC]

maybe it would be helpful to know what you mean by veneration; I'll need to re-do research, but in the 2/3 century, Irenaeus contrasts Mary and Eve. His work is available online. I'll try to hunt a source in a bit.

not necesarilly just veneration but since you dont see a change with the early "reformers" in the 1500's Im just curious about when the protestant view of Mary changed. I mean was it in the 1900's or when and what was the reasoning there must be some sort of writing or statement that argued the reason for the change of the traditional view

dont get me wrong I know the arguments against the Orthodox or Cataholic view but they all stem from more modern sources like Dr. Walter Martin, or Chuck Smith so Im wondering were it changed

BTW as far as the protoevangelium of James goes that does seem to be the earliest documentation of the traditional view of Mary but I was listening to Search the scriptures on ancient faith radio and She said that the protoevangelium of James shouldn't be sighted for proving the churches view on Mary becouse its non canonical and therefore non inspired.

 

[Thekla]

to continue, Irenaeus (d. early 200s ?) in reference to Mary says, "by her obedience she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race".

the Liturgy of St. James includes a commemoration of Mary.

the earliest (that I know of) extant surviving text of an intercessory request to Mary is a papyrus fragment from Egypt dating to the 3rd. c . (discovered in the 20th c., iirc) This "prayer" has been maintained in the EO/OO/RC:

Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν,

καταφεύγομεν, Θεοτόκε.

Τὰς ἡμῶν ἱκεσίας,

μὴ παρίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει,

ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνων λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς,

μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημÎ[wash my mouth]νη.



In English this is:


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.

 

[Thekla]

not necesarilly just veneration but since you dont see a change with the early "reformers" in the 1500's Im just curious about when the protestant view of Mary changed. I mean was it in the 1900's or when and what was the reasoning there must be some sort of writing or statement that argued the reason for the change of the traditional view

dont get me wrong I know the arguments against the Orthodox or Cataholic view but they all stem from more modern sources like Dr. Walter Martin, or Chuck Smith so Im wondering were it changed

BTW as far as the protoevangelium of James goes that does seem to be the earliest documentation of the traditional view of Mary but I was listening to Search the scriptures on ancient faith radio and She said that the protoevangelium of James shouldn't be sighted for proving the churches view on Mary becouse its non canonical and therefore non inspired.

Thanks, that does give me more direction. Although I don't know, I suspect the timing may concur with a "rejection" of the retelling, etc of the Saints in general. (A side note: there are protestant Churches named for particular Saints, but I don't recall hearing much at these Churches about the particular Saint that they've been named for ...)

 

[lionroar0]

Scholarly opinion of all of these is that they are authentic. (other than those who seek specifically to discredit scripture, but using them is of no use, we both equally reject them, I'd warrant."

The Scholarly opinion on Revelations is that it was written by John the Elder.

Also there is a difference between accepting someting as genuine and saying that the tradition which something is based on is genuine.

On the lack of objective proof on documents the NT that are not known to be guinely written by whom they are attributed to. The scholarly practice is to accept the tradition on which they are attributed to.

This is the scholarly practice with in the academic field of religious studies. Which is not limited to Christianity.

Peace

 

[Chesterton]

not necesarilly just veneration but since you dont see a change with the early "reformers" in the 1500's Im just curious about when the protestant view of Mary changed. I mean was it in the 1900's or when and what was the reasoning there must be some sort of writing or statement that argued the reason for the change of the traditional view

It might not necessarily be the case that there were specific persons that argued for the change. There might not have been an actual conscious decision to de-emphasize Mary. Some things just gradually come about within groups of like-minded people. I know in my life when I've sometimes developed bad habits, I never really made a single decision to do it, I just sort of slid into it over time. Maybe that's a good argument for the way some people insist on strict adherence to dogma and doctrine; it prevents the gradual falling away from what's good and right.

 

[Anglian]

if you're looking for exacting, objective proof, we could discount the entire record of scripture.

But I've never read one credible documentation that challenges the authenticity of the authorship of Romans by Paul, nor Revelation by John.

Hebrews doesn't claim authorship, neither does Matthew, so saying it's the work of a liar isn't really possible.

Scholarly opinion of all of these is that they are authentic. (other than those who seek specifically to discredit scripture, but using them is of no use, we both equally reject them, I'd warrant."

the Protoevamgelion does not enjoy the same distinction. Scholars are in fair agreement that is pseudopigraphical, not of the time of when it is claimed, and to be treated as spurious.

yet the first line is I, James wrote this."

It's the work of an absolute liar. Whomever wrote it was trying to lend authority to his work by claiming to be James. If you need to hide who you are specifically when you write it, you should not be trusted.

and yet, you use it as proof of something you already believe.

frankly, you only accept it because it falls in line with what you already accept.

the fact that it starts with a baldfaced lie is of no moment, because you agree with it's contents.

Dear Uphill Battle,

You are being a little inconsistent. What evidence is there that 2 Peter was written by St. Peter, or that Hebrews was written by St. Paul. It is not the case that most scholars think they were. If you read Richard Bauckham's extremely scholarly work on the Johannine writings (The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple, 2007), you'll find a very well constructed argument against the view that the Gospel was by St. John. So, if we use your argument about what we should not trust, quite a bit of the NT will find itself in trouble.

Of course, if you use the Tradition of the Church, you're fine, and since it was the Church which recognised the NT books as Apostolic, what better tradition is there?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Rhamiel]

I think the belief in the doctrine of Solus Christus (Christ alone) lead to an end of praying to Saints, so that would take away praying to our Lady. Then without devotion to her the other Marian doctrines slid away,
Philothei

The earliest document is found in the Liturgy of St. James where the Theotokos is called EV during the worship... That would place it in the first century AD.

would there be any prayers in the liturgy of St.James that could be seen as being directed towards our Lady? that would place it very early

 

[Rhamiel]

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist denomination wrote this in a letter to a Catholic it in 1749

I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

 

[Philothei]

would there be any prayers in the liturgy of St.James that could be seen as being directed towards our Lady? that would place it very early

You who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who submitted for our salvation to become flesh of the holy God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary; who immutably became man and was crucified, O Christ our God, and by Your death trod death underfoot; who art one of the Holy Trinity glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0717.htm


The earliest liturgy is not only St. James that the commomeration takes place but also Addai and Mari and aramiac/ syriac liturgy and also others mostly nestorian liturgies. The point is that (according to my hubby who is a liturgical scholar) that it is a pretty old intercession. The fact is that it was not written down until later and was carried about in oral tradition. Of course we have the fire breaking out in Jerusalem also so many texts were lost during this time...but like I said before it has been recorded in too many ancient liturgies. All liturgies had a common denominator in the way they are set up in their liturgical actions. And thus lex orandi est lex crudendi.

 

[Anglian]

Philothei would there be any prayers in the liturgy of St.James that could be seen as being directed towards our Lady? that would place it very early

Dear Rhamiel,

My own Church uses the St. James Liturgy, and there she is called 'ever Virgin'. What I fail to understand is why some seem obsessed with this issue. Do they think that if they can prove she was not 'ever Virgin' the Catholics and the Orthodox will fold up their tents and slip away? After nearly two thousand years it should be clear to everyone that the matter, like so much else, is one of faith, and cannot be resolved by any modern 'scientific' methods.

On a purely personal note, I find something distasteful in this prying into the private life of Our Lady. If the Church has seen her as 'ever Virgin', then since it is that same Church which tells us what the canon of Scripture is, that does me.

peace,

Anglian

 

[GBTWC]

On a purely personal note, I find something distasteful in this prying into the private life of Our Lady. If the Church has seen her as 'ever Virgin', then since it is that same Church which tells us what the canon of Scripture is, that does me.

peace,

Anglian

thats not really what this thread is about

 

[Philothei]

We know GB and I am sure Anglian was making a general remark . This issue is such a "scandal" by now... but still we in the EC and OO and EO church have to realize that not all of the Protestant "camp" feel the same way. Most, I beleive, respect Theotokos as the Mother of God Respect is a two way street and we cannot talk about respect if we do not respect God who is watching over us and knows our deepest thoughts

GB the Church never intented for the Theotokos to be "questioned" as there was not even "under review" that notion is up for grabs in the latest 200 years or so like Anglian said due to the "rise of the scientific method" in the Church's ecclesiology and practices. Actually it goes contrary to the whole faith experience as we know it in the first centuries that was more faith based on oral tradition and less 'evidence" based. Suddenly the Church has to "comply" to the scientific method to be truthful... Signs of our last days as the Gospel says that disbelief and unbelief will be so obvious in our world...

 

[Rhamiel]

so it seems that prayers to Mary, the Mother of God, were thrown out at the begining of the Reformation, but the belief that she was ever-virgin, was around atleast untill the mid 1800's.

 

[Philothei]

Yeah defenately...around that time. Also the decision of the second council of Constantinople shows that there was a "heresy" to believe against that dogma and grounds for excommunication. That woud mean that the Church's belief in EV was so accurate and so secure that to say otherwise was truly a blasphemy to the EV.
That proves that the EV was not even challenged before 4 century I beleive. Also they were battling other related heressies at the time of the incarnation esp. with Arius and nestorius so Theotokos was an easy target also.