Why is Mary called Panagia?

[Not David]

Would you care to address the final question of my earlier post, which was, "There are many branches of Orthodox Christianity, of which, some have excommincated the others, as in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Mar Thoma Orthodox Church in India and the Coptic Orthodox Church in India. All of them are Orthodox, but are they all orthodox?"

All of them are Non-Chalcedonians. What's your point?

 

[-Sasha-]

This is an excellent quotation, but says nothing about people becoming gods.

The first quotation from him referenced that. The one I provided answered your question regarding death.

 

[-Sasha-]

Children of God, by adoption, are not the unique, eternal Son of God as given in John 3:16. They are not demi-gods and demi-goddesses with divine attributes such as omnipresence and omniscience, which is claimed for Mary and other saints.

I'm unaware of any claims that the Saints possess omnipresence or omniscience. If you're referring here to the idea that they may hear prayers which are directed towards them, or that they may witness some things for which they aren't bodily present, the belief is normally that these are gifts given them by God to whatever degree He wishes to bestow them, via the Holy Spirit operating within them. As such it is still God who possesses these qualities, but through a humans cooperation with Him they may become tools of His grace. This is true of Saints who have bodily died, as well as some who are still alive in the world and work miracles through their faith and prayer.

 

[FenderTL5]

Will we be like Him in any or all of His uniquely divine attributes? I think not.

"..our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Where in Holy Scriptures does it say everything has to be in Scripture?

I was accused of using my interpretation of Holy Scripture. My point is that it is impossible to form any interpretation of a text which does not mention the topic at hand. Thus, it is impossible for me to foist my interpretation of Panagia in Holy Scripture, because there is nothing about it in Holy Scripture, nor even the faintest hint of it. What we are discussing is a doctrine that was evolved long after the first century and which is just a valid as any other doctrine evolved after the death of the Apostles. It is just as valid as, for example, the Catholic doctrines surrounding their office of the papacy. At least with those doctrines they have talking points based on Holy Scripture. In this case, there are no scriptural talking points whatsoever.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm unaware of any claims that the Saints possess omnipresence or omniscience. If you're referring here to the idea that they may hear prayers which are directed towards them, or that they may witness some things for which they aren't bodily present, the belief is normally that these are gifts given them by God to whatever degree He wishes to bestow them, via the Holy Spirit operating within them. As such it is still God who possesses these qualities, but through a humans cooperation with Him they may become tools of His grace. This is true of Saints who have bodily died, as well as some who are still alive in the world and work miracles through their faith and prayer.

What we have, in practice, are multitudes of people praying simultaneously to an individual. If that individual is in the same location (presence) of one of these individuals who is praying then the saint would hear the prayer. However, in order to hear all of the simultaneous prayers of a multitude of people, the saint must be in every place at the same time (omnipresence). Otherwise, only one of the prayers will be heard by the saint and all of the other people will not be heard.

Likewise, if the saint hears all of the prayers simultaneously it would be like standing in a large arena where tens of thousands (or) more people are all talking to you. Without omniscience it would be impossible to distinguish one voice over another.

 

[bbbbbbb]

"..our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

Although that is quite true, it requires a great leap to interpret the resurrection of the body to the transformation of the soul into a god.

 

[prodromos]

I was accused of using my interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Only in declaring St Athanasias' quote as unorthodox. Your standard of orthodoxy is your own interpretation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Only in declaring St Athanasias' quote as unorthodox. Your standard of orthodoxy is your own interpretation.

And your standard of orthodoxy is that of your Holy Tradition. Fair enough. Just don't dismiss the Holy Tradition of other denominations such as the RCC just because it is not your Holy Tradition.

 

[dzheremi]

If one defines orthodoxy as aligning with the revealed will and wisdom of God in holy scripture, then any teaching that deviates from it is unorthodox. If, however, one defines Orthodoxy as the Holy Tradition held by a particular denomination of Christianity which claims the title, then anything under the sun can be Orthodox even if it contradicts portions of Holy Tradition such as the Bible. There are many branches of Orthodox Christianity, of which, some have excommincated the others, as in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Mar Thoma Orthodox Church in India and the Coptic Orthodox Church in India. All of them are Orthodox, but are they all orthodox?

What even is this post? Ughhh...I don't know why I come to this website anymore.

Anyway...

1) There aren't 'branches' of Orthodox Christianity. You're either Orthodox or you aren't.
2) The Mar Thomites in India are not Orthodox. If you are referring to these people, they are a self-styled "Reformed Eastern Church" -- i.e., Protestants in Syrian garb. There is no "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" (Orthodox Indians wouldn't style themselves that way, due to the association of "Mar Thoma" as a confessional label with Protestantism), unless you are talking about a literal parish that is Orthodox that happens to be dedicated to St. Thomas, of which there are many. ("Mar Thoma" being the Syriac for St. Thomas, the founder of Christianity in India.)
3) There are no Coptic Orthodox in India, unless they're visitors/foreign workers. There are the Syriac Orthodox Indians, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Indians, and a very small number of Armenian Apostolic from the times of a much larger Armenian presence in India (there are only about 600 in the whole country today, if that, but the presence of over half a dozen churches still existing today, a college, a sports club, a scouting association, etc. all established by the Armenian community suggests a community of probably at least a few thousand at one point during healthier days in the 18th and 19th centuries).

It'd super cool if some day the people who are neither Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox could stop attempting to use the Chalcedonian schism as a cudgel with which to attempt (and fail) to beat their opponents. If you can't get the basic details right about who's who and why because you don't know what you're talking about, you should probably pick a different example.

Also, y'know...the Chalcedonians split from each other much later on, and then even later into thousands of churches thanks to the Protestant reformation leading to all kinds of ecclesiastical wackiness infecting the formerly Latin-speaking western Christian world in particular from the 1500s until today, yet for some reason that much nearer (geographically, culturally, historically) split is never used by these people as evidence that such-and-such's claims can't be taken seriously. Hmmm...I wonder why.

(I'm just kidding. I don't wonder why.)

 

[-Sasha-]

What we have, in practice, are multitudes of people praying simultaneously to an individual. If that individual is in the same location (presence) of one of these individuals who is praying then the saint would hear the prayer. However, in order to hear all of the simultaneous prayers of a multitude of people, the saint must be in every place at the same time (omnipresence). Otherwise, only one of the prayers will be heard by the saint and all of the other people will not be heard.

Likewise, if the saint hears all of the prayers simultaneously it would be like standing in a large arena where tens of thousands (or) more people are all talking to you. Without omniscience it would be impossible to distinguish one voice over another.

I will refer you back to my previous comment:
the belief is normally that these are gifts given them by God to whatever degree He wishes to bestow them, via the Holy Spirit operating within them. As such it is still God who possesses these qualities, but through a humans cooperation with Him they may become tools of His grace.

 

[FenderTL5]

Although that is quite true, it requires a great leap to interpret the resurrection of the body to the transformation of the soul into a god.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son

we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

 

[prodromos]

And your standard of orthodoxy is that of your Holy Tradition. Fair enough. Just don't dismiss the Holy Tradition of other denominations such as the RCC just because it is not your Holy Tradition.

The only other tradition at the time of St Athanasias was that of the Arian heretics. Which tradition do you align with?

 

[bbbbbbb]

What even is this post? Ughhh...I don't know why I come to this website anymore.

Anyway...

1) There aren't 'branches' of Orthodox Christianity. You're either Orthodox or you aren't.
2) The Mar Thomites in India are not Orthodox. If you are referring to these people, they are a self-styled "Reformed Eastern Church" -- i.e., Protestants in Syrian garb. There is no "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" (Orthodox Indians wouldn't style themselves that way, due to the association of "Mar Thoma" as a confessional label with Protestantism), unless you are talking about a literal parish that is Orthodox that happens to be dedicated to St. Thomas, of which there are many. ("Mar Thoma" being the Syriac for St. Thomas, the founder of Christianity in India.)
3) There are no Coptic Orthodox in India, unless they're visitors/foreign workers. There are the Syriac Orthodox Indians, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Indians, and a very small number of Armenian Apostolic from the times of a much larger Armenian presence in India (there are only about 600 in the whole country today, if that, but the presence of over half a dozen churches still existing today, a college, a sports club, a scouting association, etc. all established by the Armenian community suggests a community of probably at least a few thousand at one point during healthier days in the 18th and 19th centuries).

It'd super cool if some day the people who are neither Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox could stop attempting to use the Chalcedonian schism as a cudgel with which to attempt (and fail) to beat their opponents. If you can't get the basic details right about who's who and why because you don't know what you're talking about, you should probably pick a different example.

Also, y'know...the Chalcedonians split from each other much later on, and then even later into thousands of churches thanks to the Protestant reformation leading to all kinds of ecclesiastical wackiness infecting the formerly Latin-speaking western Christian world in particular from the 1500s until today, yet for some reason that much nearer (geographically, culturally, historically) split is never used by these people as evidence that such-and-such's claims can't be taken seriously. Hmmm...I wonder why.

(I'm just kidding. I don't wonder why.)

I really don't know why you come to this website anymore, either. Perhaps it is in a vain attempt to correct the errors of such as myself.

You might find these websites enlightening - https://www.marthomaorthodoxchurch.org/ and Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Both of these denominations, like your own, self-identify as Orthodox. It is hardly my concern that you folks refuse to recognize each other as fellow-members of the Orthodox branch of Christianity. I think all of you are in agreement that you are not members of the Protestant or Catholic branches of Christianity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I will refer you back to my previous comment:
the belief is normally that these are gifts given them by God to whatever degree He wishes to bestow them, via the Holy Spirit operating within them. As such it is still God who possesses these qualities, but through a humans cooperation with Him they may become tools of His grace.

Fair enough. So God transforms his saints into demi-gods and demi-goddesses to perform His work for Him. If that is what you believe, I certainly won't attempt to alter your belief, but merely to point out its relationship to polytheism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The only other tradition at the time of St Athanasias was that of the Arian heretics. Which tradition do you align with?

Actually, none, although one might debate that. There were many widely-accepted beliefs floating around at the time of Arius and Athansias beside the Arian heresy. Many of them have been discarded for various reasons and some of them have been retained by various branches of Christianity. Your branch developed the idea that saints can become demi-gods and demi-goddesses after death. The Catholics have rejected that notion, but have developed the primacy of Peter into the office of the papacy. Neither has much of a basis in first-century recorded history, either in holy scripture or elsewhere, but both have become immensely popular in their respective branches.

 

[Not David]

Fair enough. So God transforms his saints into demi-gods and demi-goddesses to perform His work for Him. If that is what you believe, I certainly won't attempt to alter your belief, but merely to point out its relationship to polytheism.

Isn't demigod a child of a god and a human? We don't believe in that.

 

[dzheremi]

I really don't know why you come to this website anymore, either. Perhaps it is in a vain attempt to correct the errors of such as myself.

Vain indeed.

You might find these websites enlightening - https://www.marthomaorthodoxchurch.org/

Hahahaha! Well, at least now we know whatever happened to HG Bishop Draperod...

and Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - Wikipedia

Hey, I know those guys!

Both of these denominations, like your own

like your own

like your own

...

self-identify as Orthodox.

And yet that's not what matters. As your "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" link shows (and plenty of other spin-offs of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches would likewise show), anyone can claim to be anything -- it's whether or not anyone else recognizes your claim that matters. Think of it as a bit like what makes a country a country: There are plenty of places in the world right now that have various levels of functioning governments, that consider themselves to be independent countries, and yet are not recognized as such by the international community (or are at best only semi-recognized): Somaliland, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara), Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabagh, Transnistria, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, etc. Maybe some of these are future independent republics in the making, maybe some will collapse, or maybe something else will happen. As of right now, we don't know, and all that really matters is that the countries that have the most sway in getting these territories the international recognition that they want either say no, or can't agree on whether or not to say yes. (The heavies in the UN like the USA, Russia, China, etc. I'm pretty sure there's a group of a half dozen or so that all have to agree before the territory is granted official status at the UN.)

So they're not really countries right now, and may not ever be, because even if they declare themselves to be, and issue passports and currency and stamps and do all those other things that a 'real' country does, the recognition of their statehood does not extend outside of their own borders, because legally they don't have any claim to the land that they say is theirs. Possession, as they say, is 9/10ths of the law, so if your "republic" is internationally recognized as belonging to Somalia (Somaliland), Azerbaijan (Artsakh), Moldova (Transnistria), etc., you're going to have a hard time actually convincing anyone that it is truly an independent country.

Similarly, this "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" you've found may claim to be a communion, and may claim to be maintaining the tradition of the Syriac Orthodox Church, but neither of those things are actually true. We can know that because this "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" is not actually in communion with anyone, and the actual existing Syriac Orthodox Church probably has no idea that this other group claiming to preserve its traditions even exists. I'm sure the actual Syriac Orthodox Church thought it was doing that already. More importantly, the Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo, and Armenian Apostolic churches, with which the actual Syriac Orthodox Church is in communion, all definitely think so too. Because they form a communion that mutually recognizes each other's churches. They aren't just individual websites on the internet. Whereas this group you've found doesn't form anything, and isn't recognized by anyone.

It is hardly my concern that you folks refuse to recognize each other as fellow-members of the Orthodox branch of Christianity.

Alright. It remains the case that "Communion" is not just a fancy church word that doesn't have any meaning. You can't just call yourself a communion when you're not one.

I think all of you are in agreement that you are not members of the Protestant or Catholic branches of Christianity.

Ehhh...okay.

Where's that "tough pills to swallow" meme I left around here somewhere...

 

[prodromos]

Hahahaha! Well, at least now we know whatever happened to HG Bishop Draperod...

That guy was too thin to be Bishop Chief Swift Eagle Justice. I did find it funny how each of their clerics wore a different traditional garb from the others. Just pick and choose whatever they like from everybody else.

 

[prodromos]

I see that the Dunning–Kruger effect is alive and well.