Why is Mary called Panagia?

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Where in Holy Scriptures does it say everything has to be in Scripture?

And what is the point of recognizing a set of writings as being inspired by God as opposed to all other writings? If all are equal, then one has just as much validity as any other. I rather doubt that you consider writings such as the Gospel of Thomas to have equal standing with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do you?
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Isn't demigod a child of a god and a human? We don't believe in that.

You are partially correct. The dictionary definition of a demi-god (or demi-goddess) is as follows:

a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.

There is little doubt that your denomination believes that mortals are raised to divine rank by God, thus they become demi-gods.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Vain indeed.

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

Hey, I know those guys! :D

... :scratch:

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.

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.

Ehhh...okay.

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

Thanks for the interesting analogy. Although some Christian denominations have (and continue to) claimed temporal power and territory, such as the Vatican states of the Roman Catholic Church, the analogy falls flat, even with state churches such as the Anglican Communion, which is now spread all over the world. One can, for example, say that the only actual members of the Church of England reside in modern-day England (not Great Britain or any of its former imperial territories) even as one might claim that Byzantine Christianity disappeared when the Ottomans overran Byzantium.

The fact that various Christians self-identify as being members of various denominations does not mean that those denominations have no valid existence because other denominations have determined that they do not exist. It is the old analogy of the ostrich sticking its head in the ground. I cannot help the fact that there are numerous denominations which self-identify as being Orthodox even though they have refused to recognize the very existence of the others.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Thanks for the interesting analogy. Although some Christian denominations have (and continue to) claimed temporal power and territory, such as the Vatican states of the Roman Catholic Church, the analogy falls flat, even with state churches such as the Anglican Communion, which is now spread all over the world.

I guess I failed at explaining this, since this wasn't at all the point of analogy. Sorry about that. The point was that we are validated (or not) through our associations -- i.e., the "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" you found would be a valid example if the Church it was presenting itself as a part of actually recognized it as being what it says it is, but they/we don't, so this is just one of many (not as many as the Chalcedonians', but many) modern-day splinter groups claiming to be a part of Orthodoxy that isn't.

If we take this principle and move it sort of 'one level up' from looking at individual churches within a communion (or claiming to be) to looking at communions themselves, we run into the second problem your posts don't seem to recognize: as the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) and the Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonians) as communions do not recognize one another as belonging to the same Church (i.e., I can't go to a Russian Orthodox Church and receive communion there, and Russian Orthodox can't come to a Coptic Orthodox Church and receive communion there, barring a mutual agreement between our respective bishops), pointing out that there are different groups calling themselves "Orthodox" that don't recognize each other is neither surprising, nor does it say anything in itself that would actually harm Orthodox ecclesiology or theology. All you're basically showing is that you've found two communions that both claim Orthodoxy but don't recognize each other as being Orthodox, but this is really not news to anyone in either of those communions, nor does anyone in either of them come to the conclusion that you seem to that no one can therefore actually be Orthodox and it's all just a matter of opinion or something. Orthodoxy is not really a matter of opinion; it's a matter of our existence and mindset. This is part of the reason behind why your calling HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's writing an "interesting but unorthodox opinion" has hit a sour note with everyone: HH is recognized as being fully orthodox by everyone -- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, as far as I know High-Church Protestants (Anglicans, etc.), etc. So it's like shorthand for saying "I don't know the difference between a figure who articulated the precise faith that we still hold to today and gave to us many of the fundamental terms that are basic to the understanding of traditional Christian theology and myself, so I'm going to say it's all a matter of opinion, and I don't like his, so it's unorthodox." Okay. Thanks for playing. Bye. :wave:

The fact that various Christians self-identify as being members of various denominations does not mean that those denominations have no valid existence because other denominations have determined that they do not exist.

It's not that they don't exist (though something existing is a pretty low bar), but that they aren't what they claim they are. Again, we are validated or not through our associations. This is the same reason why I don't go on to any of the specifically Chacledonian (Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic) subforums of this website and start spouting a bunch of nonsense that they are not 'real' churches because they aren't in communion with the bishops of my Church. They don't recognize my Church as being what it says it is, either, so of course they don't recognize our bishops, since they weren't ordained by Chalcedonian (EO or RC) bishops coming from their own respective churches. That's literal proof that we are not in communion, to say nothing of the varying theological and ecclesiological disagreements we may have, depending on which communion you are comparing with which (as the EO and RC aren't in communion with one another, either).

It is the old analogy of the ostrich sticking its head in the ground. I cannot help the fact that there are numerous denominations which self-identify as being Orthodox even though they have refused to recognize the very existence of the others.

It's actually not like that at all. There are no denominations within in Orthodoxy, but rather two separate communions which both claim to be Orthodox (but differ with one another, primarily on the theology that was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and some related issues, and hence are not in communion), and then a bunch of splinter groups from both (more from the Eastern Orthodox/Chalcedonians, since they are by far the larger of the two).

We don't pretend like the other doesn't exist, but we don't say that they are Orthodox just because they say they are. Admittedly the range of opinions on this matter is probably greater in my communion than in theirs (as far as I can tell from the internet, anyway; in real life, I've never really had any problem with any of them), but either way that doesn't matter, since personal opinions don't determine who is actually in communion with who. That's why we have holy synods composed of bishops to represent us and make decisions on our behalf as a church (e.g., the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Holy Synod of the Armenian Apostolic Church, etc.), and could theoretically come together in a communion-wide council to make decisions that would involve the entire communion, as would have to be the case if we were to enter into open communion with the Chalcedonians. (This is how, e.g., the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Chruch -- OO and EO roughly 'equivalent' churches, both claiming descent from the ancient See of Antioch -- can agree to commune each other's faithful without meaning that the OO and EO are reunited as a communion; this is also why, administratively-speaking, the mutual lifting of the anathemas of 1054 by the Greek EO and Latin RC patriarchs back in the 1960s didn't magically heal the EO/RC schism.)
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
And what is the point of recognizing a set of writings as being inspired by God as opposed to all other writings? If all are equal, then one has just as much validity as any other. I rather doubt that you consider writings such as the Gospel of Thomas to have equal standing with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do you?
Because it is not part of Tradition recognized by the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, they are all (self-identifying) Orthodox bodies of Christians, are they not?
They also consider themselves Catholics, and even some Reformation groups consider themselves "Reformed Catholics".
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
You are partially correct. The dictionary definition of a demi-god (or demi-goddess) is as follows:

a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.

There is little doubt that your denomination believes that mortals are raised to divine rank by God, thus they become demi-gods.
Wow, you act like the Muslims who say because there are 3 persons in the Trinity we believe in "3 gods". Recognize that the term "demigod" comes from religions that believe in different gods and don't believe in being partakers of the divine nature like the book of Peter says.:)
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Because it is not part of Tradition recognized by the Church.

So, any writings which are said to be part of the Tradition of your denomination are infallible and true, including, but hardly limited to, the holy scriptures? And this determination is not made by a Pope, but by a group of fallible human men. Hmmmmm.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
They also consider themselves Catholics, and even some Reformation groups consider themselves "Reformed Catholics".

In case you are unaware, your own denomination also considers itself to be Catholic, but not in the same sense as the Roman Catholic church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Wow, you act like the Muslims who say because there are 3 persons in the Trinity we believe in "3 gods". Recognize that the term "demigod" comes from religions that believe in different gods and don't believe in being partakers of the divine nature like the book of Peter says.:)

I am merely stating the standard dictionary definition of demi-god. Please note that the definition has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy Trinity or the Triune Godhead. The fact is that your denomination teaches that a really, really, really, really good member of your denomination can become a god after death. According to what has been posted thus far, this idea was first hinted at by Athanasius, was it not?
 
Upvote 0

-Sasha-

Handmaid of God
Apr 12, 2019
382
472
Midwest
✟27,318.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I am merely stating the standard dictionary definition of demi-god. Please note that the definition has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holy Trinity or the Triune Godhead. The fact is that your denomination teaches that a really, really, really, really good member of your denomination can become a god after death. According to what has been posted thus far, this idea was first hinted at by Athanasius, was it not?
Perhaps, based on the previous statement in Scripture which the comments by Athanasius were based upon.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I guess I failed at explaining this, since this wasn't at all the point of analogy. Sorry about that. The point was that we are validated (or not) through our associations -- i.e., the "Mar Thoma Orthodox Church" you found would be a valid example if the Church it was presenting itself as a part of actually recognized it as being what it says it is, but they/we don't, so this is just one of many (not as many as the Chalcedonians', but many) modern-day splinter groups claiming to be a part of Orthodoxy that isn't.

If we take this principle and move it sort of 'one level up' from looking at individual churches within a communion (or claiming to be) to looking at communions themselves, we run into the second problem your posts don't seem to recognize: as the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) and the Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonians) as communions do not recognize one another as belonging to the same Church (i.e., I can't go to a Russian Orthodox Church and receive communion there, and Russian Orthodox can't come to a Coptic Orthodox Church and receive communion there, barring a mutual agreement between our respective bishops), pointing out that there are different groups calling themselves "Orthodox" that don't recognize each other is neither surprising, nor does it say anything in itself that would actually harm Orthodox ecclesiology or theology. All you're basically showing is that you've found two communions that both claim Orthodoxy but don't recognize each other as being Orthodox, but this is really not news to anyone in either of those communions, nor does anyone in either of them come to the conclusion that you seem to that no one can therefore actually be Orthodox and it's all just a matter of opinion or something. Orthodoxy is not really a matter of opinion; it's a matter of our existence and mindset. This is part of the reason behind why your calling HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic's writing an "interesting but unorthodox opinion" has hit a sour note with everyone: HH is recognized as being fully orthodox by everyone -- Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, as far as I know High-Church Protestants (Anglicans, etc.), etc. So it's like shorthand for saying "I don't know the difference between a figure who articulated the precise faith that we still hold to today and gave to us many of the fundamental terms that are basic to the understanding of traditional Christian theology and myself, so I'm going to say it's all a matter of opinion, and I don't like his, so it's unorthodox." Okay. Thanks for playing. Bye. :wave:

It's not that they don't exist (though something existing is a pretty low bar), but that they aren't what they claim they are. Again, we are validated or not through our associations. This is the same reason why I don't go on to any of the specifically Chacledonian (Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic) subforums of this website and start spouting a bunch of nonsense that they are not 'real' churches because they aren't in communion with the bishops of my Church. They don't recognize my Church as being what it says it is, either, so of course they don't recognize our bishops, since they weren't ordained by Chalcedonian (EO or RC) bishops coming from their own respective churches. That's literal proof that we are not in communion, to say nothing of the varying theological and ecclesiological disagreements we may have, depending on which communion you are comparing with which (as the EO and RC aren't in communion with one another, either).

It's actually not like that at all. There are no denominations within in Orthodoxy, but rather two separate communions which both claim to be Orthodox (but differ with one another, primarily on the theology that was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and some related issues, and hence are not in communion), and then a bunch of splinter groups from both (more from the Eastern Orthodox/Chalcedonians, since they are by far the larger of the two).

We don't pretend like the other doesn't exist, but we don't say that they are Orthodox just because they say they are. Admittedly the range of opinions on this matter is probably greater in my communion than in theirs (as far as I can tell from the internet, anyway; in real life, I've never really had any problem with any of them), but either way that doesn't matter, since personal opinions don't determine who is actually in communion with who. That's why we have holy synods composed of bishops to represent us and make decisions on our behalf as a church (e.g., the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Holy Synod of the Armenian Apostolic Church, etc.), and could theoretically come together in a communion-wide council to make decisions that would involve the entire communion, as would have to be the case if we were to enter into open communion with the Chalcedonians. (This is how, e.g., the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Chruch -- OO and EO roughly 'equivalent' churches, both claiming descent from the ancient See of Antioch -- can agree to commune each other's faithful without meaning that the OO and EO are reunited as a communion; this is also why, administratively-speaking, the mutual lifting of the anathemas of 1054 by the Greek EO and Latin RC patriarchs back in the 1960s didn't magically heal the EO/RC schism.)

I see. Orthodoxy, then, is in the mind of the member and anyone who doesn't agree with what another Orthodox body teaches or believes has the right to dismiss it. That actually makes life so much simpler. After excommunicating everyone outside the walls of your denomination you end up amazingly similar to your friends in Rome - there is no salvation outside of your church.

Out of curiosity, do you consider the Coptic Orthodox Church to actually be Catholic or Protestant, or something else?
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Perhaps, based on the previous statement in Scripture which the comments by Athanasius were based upon.

Either your church teaches and believes that that a really, really, really, really good member of your denomination can become a god after death or it doesn't. Which is it?
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
So, any writings which are said to be part of the Tradition of your denomination are infallible and true, including, but hardly limited to, the holy scriptures? And this determination is not made by a Pope, but by a group of fallible human men. Hmmmmm.
I wonder which infallible men decided the books for the Bible? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Either your church teaches and believes that that a really, really, really, really good member of your denomination can become a god after death or it doesn't. Which is it?
Just like the Bible implies :)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: -Sasha-
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
So, any writings which are said to be part of the Tradition of your denomination are infallible and true
Said no Orthodox Christian ever, but it is so much easier to attack strawmen.
including, but hardly limited to, the holy scriptures? And this determination is not made by a Pope, but by a group of fallible human men. Hmmmmm.
No one is considered infallible in the Orthodox Church other than the Holy Trinity, however we follow the model established by the Apostles in Acts 15 to safeguard against the errors of individuals.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Just like the Bible implies :)

The Bible has been taken to imply an enormous number of doctrines, most of which are patently ridiculous, at best (such as the alleged miracles performed by the infant Jesus) or heretical at worst as in Gnosticism. If you are deriving your doctrine by biblical implication you are on shaky ground, indeed.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Said no Orthodox Christian ever, but it is so much easier to attack strawmen.

No one is considered infallible in the Orthodox Church other than the Holy Trinity, however we follow the model established by the Apostles in Acts 15 to safeguard against the errors of individuals.

In that I find you on much surer ground than our brethren in the Catholic Church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,803
13,115
72
✟362,269.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I wonder which infallible men decided the books for the Bible? :scratch:

It was determined, as I believe you know, by the Church meeting in ecumencal council. However, that did not prevent our Catholic brethren from calling their own council at Trent to proclaim a host of doctrines and anathemas primarily aimed at Protestants but obviously intended to distinguish themselves from all other Christians. Among these proclamations they set forth their canon of scripture. If, as we believe, this council was illegitimate in that it failed to be a truly ecumencal council, then we have no reason to heed any of its proclamations.
 
Upvote 0