Virgin Mary

[PatrickJ]

Are Orthodox beliefs of Virgin Mary the same as Catholic beliefs or different? If different, how are they different?

[choirfiend]

We believe that Mary is the Theotokos, or God-Bearer. We believe that she lived a sinless life, but we dont believe in the Immaculate Conception. We believe that her parents, Joachim and Anna raised her as a pious maid, growing up in the Temple always doing God's will. We believe that it is because of her obediance to God's will that Christ was able to come into the world. We believe that she was a virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Christ, which is the significance of the three stars on her head and shoulders in our iconography. We believe that she asks her Son to answer our prayers, as we see her intereceding on our behalf in the Wedding at Cana. We believe that she was in need of her Son's death and resurrection to reunite her, as all humanity, with God again. She died and was taken into heaven by her Son, and there she prays for all Christians. We honor and praise her, for all generations are to call her blessed!

That's the gist of it!

[xristos.anesti]

"We believe that it is because of her obediance to God's will that Christ was able to come into the world".

Hm... I am not quite sure, but this is going into some extremes. What I mean is that Christ was coming because it was His will to come. Before all times were created He was coming. Even if we did not fall, He was coming. Even if Mary said no and "Suzan" became Theotokos, He was coming. And nothing was going to stop Him.

So, I would go very gently when stating that: "because of her obediance to God's will that Christ was able to come into the world". This is a close to where RC are going with Marian Patriarchalism (co-redeemer).

Christ was coming into this world regardless of Mary's obediance. Saying that is just like saying that Christ is going to return because of obediance of the Church to Him.

This does not de-value her obediance as the worthy maiden of God and the mother of the Church, the hierarchical position of the Theotokos as higher than all the angels; but I would not prescribe to her more than she is prescribed as I would not take away from her what is prescribed.

Many years.

[choirfiend]

OK, so let me temper that by saying that because of her obediance to WHAT WAS GOD's WILL (aka that Christ should come into the world) that Christ came into the world at the time that He willed...It was still God's will, not dependant on her, but God works in conjunction with us, not just by overpowering us, and this is what was meant by my statement. If she had asked that that cup pass from her? We do not speculate.

[Pyotr]

Well, like was said before, if Mary had said no and God had gone to "Suzan," then "Suzan" would have been the one whom we call more honorable that the cherubim etc.

It's interesting to think, though, that God had been preparing a certain maiden to come from a certain geneaology for generations and generations in order to bear the Messiah! While I think this mostly just means that God knew (of course He did) that Mary would say yes because of her otherworldly pure and holy response to God's will, it also shows that Mary is the one who would find favor with God and whose "yes" would make her the New Eve, loosing the bond of the knot which Eve's disobedience tied around our race.

[Servus Iesu]

God is omniscient. He foreknew from the foundation of the world that Mary would assent to the divine plan and become the Theotokos. If Mary was going to say no He wouldn't have asked her.

[Philip]

God is omniscient. He foreknew from the foundation of the world that Mary would assent to the divine plan and become the Theotokos. If Mary was going to say no He wouldn't have asked her.

True enough. But this does not change the fact the Mary did bend her will in submission to the will of the Father.

[Servus Iesu]

True enough. But this does not change the fact the Mary did bend her will in submission to the will of the Father.

Absolutely.

[xristos.anesti]

I do not think that anyone doubts (well at least here, on this forum) that Theotokos as a proper example of humble and simple submission to the will of God has shown herself, by the mercy of God, as most blessed beyond compare for through her the Salvation of our souls came to the world, incarnated as planned before all ages, of one essence with the Father, true God from (of) true God. It is proper to call her Theotokos and mother of our God, our mother and of whom, in whom and through whom the Word became flesh; of her free will she became the gate of our salvation, the bridge of the covenant and mother of us all, our new Eve, our mother and mother of our God.

This much is clear.

[Kolya]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to xristos.anesti again. ;)

[HandmaidenOfGod]

I do not think that anyone doubts (well at least here, on this forum) that Theotokos as a proper example of humble and simple submission to the will of God has shown herself, by the mercy of God, as most blessed beyond compare for through her the Salvation of our souls came to the world, incarnated as planned before all ages, of one essence with the Father, true God from (of) true God. It is proper to call her Theotokos and mother of our God, our mother and of whom, in whom and through whom the Word became flesh; of her free will she became the gate of our salvation, the bridge of the covenant and mother of us all, our new Eve, our mother and mother of our God.

This much is clear.

:amen:

[NewToLife]

Hm... I am not quite sure, but this is going into some extremes. What I mean is that Christ was coming because it was His will to come. Before all times were created He was coming. Even if we did not fall, He was coming. Even if Mary said no and "Suzan" became Theotokos, He was coming. And nothing was going to stop Him.


This makes me uncomfortable as, to me, it looks like the top of a slippery slope leading to a protestant view.

God has given man freewill, Mary's obedience is no more diminished by God's foreknowledge of it than is the fall excused by that same foreknowledge. We have to recognise that God chose Mary to be His mother out of every woman that ever lived, the very fact of God's choice precludes that another could have fulfilled the role, she was the only perfect choice precisely because she was God's choice. As such she is uniquely blessed out of all women and holds a place in the plan of salvation that could not have been held by any other, her yes enabled the incarnation. This seems to me to simply reflect that God wants for us to play a role in our own salvation, certainly we can do nothing without Him but He is not content for humanity to do nothing at all.

[xristos.anesti]

This makes me uncomfortable as, to me, it looks like the top of a slippery slope leading to a protestant view.

God has given man freewill, Mary's obedience is no more diminished by God's foreknowledge of it than is the fall excused by that same foreknowledge. We have to recognise that God chose Mary to be His mother out of every woman that ever lived, the very fact of God's choice precludes that another could have fulfilled the role, she was the only perfect choice precisely because she was God's choice. As such she is uniquely blessed out of all women and holds a place in the plan of salvation that could not have been held by any other, her yes enabled the incarnation. This seems to me to simply reflect that God wants for us to play a role in our own salvation, certainly we can do nothing without Him but He is not content for humanity to do nothing at all.


I am not very sure that I dealt with the issue of free will, that is why I do not see why my comment is being placed in the same context.

[pilgrimtim]

Only Mary the Ever-Virgin could be the GOD bearer before she said yes. There was no other virgin in Israel that fill the requirements of prophecy and upbringing. Mary is the one born to bear GOD in her womb. Mary the one presented at the temple when she was only 3 and ascended the step to the Holy of Holy where she was feed by an angel with manna from heaven. GOD trusted Mary somuch He put the Salvation of the Human race in her will. She had full freedom to say no when the Angel Gabriel came to her and told her she would bear a children and he save then people from their sins. YES she was prepared before hand to live that life of the Birthgiver of GOD but that in no way dimnishes her consent and GOD faith in her.
And If GOD had such faith in Mary the Ever-Virgin maybe we could trust her enough to beg her righteous petitions on our behalf to her SON, Our Lord, GOD and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[bostonlass]

It's interesting to think, though, that God had been preparing a certain maiden to come from a certain geneaology for generations and generations in order to bear the Messiah!

Hi. :wave: I don't think I've ever posted in this section before. Mary is my favorite subject though.:blush:

One question I have for you all is, although you aren't called to believe that Mary was Immaculately conceived, are you allowed to believe it if you wish?

Also, doesn't it stand to figure that God would want His son to be conceived in a perfect vessel full of grace and therefore free from all sin?


Thanks!

God bless,

bridget

[Philip]

One question I have for you all is, although you aren't called to believe that Mary was Immaculately conceived, are you allowed to believe it if you wish?


It is the teaching of the Orthodox Church that Mary was conceived in exactly the same way the rest of us were. Some call that immaculate since we do not believe that anyone is born guilty.

[bostonlass]

Some call that immaculate since we do not believe that anyone is born guilty.

This may seem cliche but you really DO learn something new every day!!!:D I had no idea that you all believed that. Thanks!:wave:

[Shubunkin]

I have a lot to learn.

[xristos.anesti]

I have a lot to learn.

Great Orthodox saying!

Valid as for the first day of Orthodoxy, so for the "middle" day in New Jerusalem.

For, we are learning of the things unlearnable.
We are speaking of the things unspeakable.
We are thinking of the things unthinkable.

All in all, for all and through all, the more we grow - the less we know.

[The Prokeimenon!]

... and that's one to grow on :D

[prodromos]

I was considering the tradition that Mary was visited regularly by angels as she grew up in the temple in light of her response to the Archangel Gabriel appearing to her in Luke 1:29. Compare her response to that of say, Zacharias in Luke 1:12, or the shepherds in Luke 2:9, or the guards in Matthew 28:4. Mary was troubled by the greeting she was given by the Archangel, but she seemed otherwise nonplussed by his presence. All the others are gripped by fear.

I thought it was interesting :)

John

[Kolya]

A very interesting observation John!

[Michael the Iconographer]

Are Orthodox beliefs of Virgin Mary the same as Catholic beliefs or different? If different, how are they different?

We do not accept the following Roman Catholic beliefs in Mary:

The Immaculate Conception
Mediatrix of all Graces
Co-Redmptrix

[bostonlass]

We do not accept the following Roman Catholic beliefs in Mary:

The Immaculate Conception
Mediatrix of all Graces
Co-Redmptrix

I've never heard of the last two. :scratch:

[ExOrienteLux]

I was considering the tradition that Mary was visited regularly by angels as she grew up in the temple in light of her response to the Archangel Gabriel appearing to her in Luke 1:29. Compare her response to that of say, Zacharias in Luke 1:12, or the shepherds in Luke 2:9, or the guards in Matthew 28:4. Mary was troubled by the greeting she was given by the Archangel, but she seemed otherwise nonplussed by his presence. All the others are gripped by fear.

I thought it was interesting :)

John

For illustration, look at many icons of her Presentation. They show a small picture of her in a corner of the Temple, being visited and fed by an angel.

I've always found this bit of info very interesting and it made much sense when you think about it.

-Philip.

[Matrona]

I've never heard of the last two. :scratch:
You should know that there are some Roman Catholic apologist websites that distort Orthodox beliefs and patristic writings, claiming that Orthodox somehow once believed that Mary is 'co-redemptrix' or 'mediatrix of all graces', etc. Rest assured that claims that the East EVER believed those things at ANY POINT IN HISTORY are utterly without basis in reality.

ANY source that claims this about Orthodox belief, is extremely disrespectful, intellectually dishonest, and highly suspect in all its other claims as well.

[bostonlass]

You should know that there are some Roman Catholic apologist websites that distort Orthodox beliefs and patristic writings, claiming that Orthodox somehow once believed that Mary is 'co-redemptrix' or 'mediatrix of all graces', etc. Rest assured that claims that the East EVER believed those things at ANY POINT IN HISTORY are utterly without basis in reality.

ANY source that claims this about Orthodox belief, is extremely disrespectful, intellectually dishonest, and highly suspect in all its other claims as well.

Thanks for the information!

God bless,

Bridget

[Ragamuffins]

I was considering the tradition that Mary was visited regularly by angels as she grew up in the temple in light of her response to the Archangel Gabriel appearing to her in Luke 1:29. Compare her response to that of say, Zacharias in Luke 1:12, or the shepherds in Luke 2:9, or the guards in Matthew 28:4. Mary was troubled by the greeting she was given by the Archangel, but she seemed otherwise nonplussed by his presence. All the others are gripped by fear.

I thought it was interesting :)

John
Hey John and all,

Just curious, how do you reconcile the "traditional" stories like the one you mention with the fact that there is no historical basis written or other wise in Jewish culture of women being temple virgins?

The Essenes were the only ones to have temple virgins (they valued chastity) and those were male priests not women.

Always bugged me about that story, that historical facts don't line up with it.

[Facing East]

there is no historical basis written or other wise in Jewish culture of women being temple virgins?

Wouldn't the Protoevangelium of James be a historical document realting to Temple virigins in Israel? The document was written mid 2nd century

[xristos.anesti]

Wouldn't the Protoevangelium of James be a historical document realting to Temple virigins in Israel? The document was written mid 2nd century

Indeed.

Also, there are other early writings that confirm the same.
Knowing how the canon of NT was concluded, we would have to thread very carefully when unilaterally (like the protestants do) denaunce these writings.

Almost 1/4 of the today's NT was part of these writings at some stage.

Saying that there is no historic proof (for something like Virgin in the Temple) is like saying that there is no historic proof for Christ living 30 years of his life.

But, somehow, no normal Christian would question this.

Historic "proof" is no basis of faith.

The real issue here is the point that if one questiones the Life of Theotokos before and after Life of Christ the Preacher one should realise that Gospels SPEAK OF CHRIST the Preacher-the Sufferer-the Victor and not of Christ the child, Christ the tradesman, Christ the batchelor... nor of Theotokos the child, Theotokos in the temple...

Using Gospels as be all and end all of History is somewhat like using book of Exodus and saying "This is the whole life of Moses".

As far as historic proof that is needed as a basis of faith, hm.. I just would not go there.



Many years.

[Servus Iesu]

Xristos,

Great points.

[prodromos]

Just curious, how do you reconcile the "traditional" stories like the one you mention with the fact that there is no historical basis written or other wise in Jewish culture of women being temple virgins?
Given that the temple was only in Jerusalem, it would not be unusual for there not to be much in the way of records pertaining to temple practices and traditions outside of Jerusalem. Since the destruction of the temple was complete, and much of Jerusalem along with it in 70AD, the lack of corroberating evidence regarding temple virgins would not be surprising.

These are just my thoughts on the matter and I am no historian, so take them with a grain of salt (and I have no idea what that means either :D )

John

[Ragamuffins]

Wouldn't the Protoevangelium of James be a historical document realting to Temple virigins in Israel? The document was written mid 2nd century
No I wouldn't actually. It contains a great many "fanciful" ideas, but there is not historical basis for this document.

[Ragamuffins]

Given that the temple was only in Jerusalem, it would not be unusual for there not to be much in the way of records pertaining to temple practices and traditions outside of Jerusalem. Since the destruction of the temple was complete, and much of Jerusalem along with it in 70AD, the lack of corroberating evidence regarding temple virgins would not be surprising.

These are just my thoughts on the matter and I am no historian, so take them with a grain of salt (and I have no idea what that means either :D )

John
Does it bother you that there is no oral or written traditions of the Jews concerning this then? Josephus the Jewish historian makes no reference to this at all.

Does it bother any of you that historians or theologians today say that this book is a combination of two maybe three works?

I will respect your opinion as your opinion and will not debate you in your area, but I will say I do not see a seed of truth in the Proto of James. I cannot by faith accept a work of fiction as fact or something based on fact.

Thanks for your time.

[Rilian]

No I wouldn't actually. It contains a great many "fanciful" ideas, but there is not historical basis for this document.

The same is said for a number of books of the canonical Old Testament. Consider the book of Esther for instance. This to me is a much more difficult thing to come to terms with in the sola scriptura framework.

[xristos.anesti]

Does it bother you that there is no oral or written traditions of the Jews concerning this then? Josephus the Jewish historian makes no reference to this at all.

Does it bother any of you that historians or theologians today say that this book is a combination of two maybe three works?

I will respect your opinion as your opinion and will not debate you in your area, but I will say I do not see a seed of truth in the Proto of James. I cannot by faith accept a work of fiction as fact or something based on fact.

Thanks for your time.


Lord have mercy!

[Michael the Iconographer]

I've never heard of the last two. :scratch:

Read some of John Paul II's last encyclicals and papal letters. Those two doctrines are clearly being taught by Rome. I was appalled as a Roman Catholic Seminarian when I was first taught those two beliefs. They were the first two teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which I found myself openly disagreeing with.

[bostonlass]

Read some of John Paul II's last encyclicals and papal letters. Those two doctrines are clearly being taught by Rome. I was appalled as a Roman Catholic Seminarian when I was first taught those two beliefs. They were the first two teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which I found myself openly disagreeing with.

Thanks. I know what they mean but had never heard the terminology. I'll leave it at that since I don't want to debate. ;)

God bless!

Bridget

[Michael the Iconographer]

Thanks. I know what they mean but had never heard the terminology. I'll leave it at that since I don't want to debate. ;)

God bless!

Bridget

Basically those two beliefs boil down to this (in a very simplified version):

Mediatrix of all Graces: All grace that flows through the Holy Spirit then flows through Mary.

Co-Redemptrix: Because Mary said "yes" to the incarnation she is co-redeemer with Christ.

Needless to say Orthodox Christians do not believe these doctrines.

[choirfiend]

It's probably better to learn about Christ, the heresies propagated, the heresies defeated, the wonderful doctrine about the Trinity and our salvation, then to get hung up on stuff about the Theotokos. Everything about her is understood in the context of the living God, so if you haven't gotten that context, the core of our faith and our Salvation, there's not much point in trying to get the beliefs about the Theotokos. It comes down to seeing and experiencing and believing that God has one truth and one faith and that faith has never been corrupted; that Christ's promise is true and that He communes with men more than He did even when He walked the earth. If you believe that someone is keeping the Apostolic faith and you look for that, proved through time and space as the Universal Church, then you will find Christ, and that's all anyone is trying to do, to live in eternal communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Praise the Lord all you nations! Praise Him all peoples! Let everything that breathes praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Here is a great article from “Again (http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/62/9/9/)” magazine on the Ever-virginity of the Theotokos. It’s easy to read, and does a great job explaining why we believe what we believe.

Hope this helps! :thumbsup:

In XC,

Maureen

[Photini]

I don't see that it is such a far-fetched belief. ANyways, there was the prophetess Anna who was a widow and never left the temple.

[Facing East]

Does it bother you that there is no oral or written traditions of the Jews concerning this then? Josephus the Jewish historian makes no reference to this at all.

Does it bother any of you that historians or theologians today say that this book is a combination of two maybe three works?

I will respect your opinion as your opinion and will not debate you in your area, but I will say I do not see a seed of truth in the Proto of James. I cannot by faith accept a work of fiction as fact or something based on fact.

Thanks for your time.

I have no problem with it whatsoever ... it is your choice alone to reject the document. But I accept the idea that Mary was a temple virgin becuase it is an apostolic inheritence, a gift. It's really a choice if one wishes to accept the inheritence of faith or reject it. You've chosen to reject it, I choose to accept what has been handed to me by my holy fathers.

theologians today say that this book is a combination of two maybe three works?

And??? Some theologians say that the Penteteuch and Isaiah are multiple works. Do you accept that as well?

[The Prokeimenon!]

Basically those two beliefs boil down to this (in a very simplified version):

Mediatrix of all Graces: All grace that flows through the Holy Spirit then flows through Mary.

Co-Redemptrix: Because Mary said "yes" to the incarnation she is co-redeemer with Christ.

Needless to say Orthodox Christians do not believe these doctrines.

Happy birthday!

Moses

[Ragamuffins]

I have no problem with it whatsoever ... it is your choice alone to reject the document. But I accept the idea that Mary was a temple virgin becuase it is an apostolic inheritence, a gift. It's really a choice if one wishes to accept the inheritence of faith or reject it. You've chosen to reject it, I choose to accept what has been handed to me by my holy fathers.
Good for you, I hope that it brings you great joy to do so.

And??? Some theologians say that the Penteteuch and Isaiah are multiple works. Do you accept that as well?
No because the church canonized the book of Isaiah and the Pent. Apples and oranges really.

[Ragamuffins]

I don't see that it is such a far-fetched belief. ANyways, there was the prophetess Anna who was a widow and never left the temple.
Actually the only times public worship were allowed was at the prescribed times of 9 and 3 (Acts 2:15, Acts 3:1). Now during these times Anna probably never left the temple, but she would have had to go home after the times were finished. Many people think that she was a very pious woman: "Continually - that is, at the usual times of public worship and in private. When it is said that she departed not from the temple, it is meant that she was “constant” and “regular” in all the public services at the temple, or was never absent from those services."

[Rilian]

No because the church canonized the book of Isaiah and the Pent. Apples and oranges really.

Yes and no. You're basing your objections on critical scholarship of the document in question. The same analysis applied to the Protoevangelium could easily be applied to other texts, canonical or not, and many of the same conclusions reached. The book of Esther, as I said before, is viewed by many scholars as completely fictional (and it's in the canon). In this sense it isn't apples and oranges because the canonical boundary from an academic perspective is arbitrary.

I would say the Protoevangelium is actually less problematic when viewed from this angle than the canonical books, for the very reason that it is not canonical. In that sense, we are talking apples and oranges.

[Ragamuffins]

Yes and no. You're basing your objections on critical scholarship of the document in question. The same analysis applied to the Protoevangelium could easily be applied to other texts, canonical or not, and many of the same conclusions reached. The book of Esther, as I said before, is viewed by many scholars as completely fictional (and it's in the canon). In this sense it isn't apples and oranges because the canonical boundary from an academic perspective is arbitrary.
Not really, because even if the scholars do say that Esther is suspect, the Jews, and the Christians both agree that it is sacred scripture and have included them in their canon as Holy Spirit inspired works. That is why even when I see errors in them I accept the DC unlike many of my prot. bretherin.

The PVJ is not a canonical book it is a work of holy fiction. The very premise that the book is in the same catagory as the canon is absurd therefore it is apples and oranges.

The book says it is written by whom? James. "And I James that wrote this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased, glorifying the Lord God, who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write this history."

Now James did not write this book in fact he was dead long before this book was even thought up. This poses a huge problem for me.

another thing that bothers me is:
Mid-way through the story, the story teller switches from third person to first person Joseph and back again. (sections 18 and 19)

I am not even going to get onto the first part of the 20th section... ick.

[Rilian]

Ragamuffins, all I can say is you’re not applying your arguments consistenly. You want to attack the Protoevangelium by critically examining the text. You draw a boundary at the canonical Old Testament which then simply begs the question, what is canonical and why? You say

even if the scholars do say that Esther is suspect, the Jews, and the Christians both agree that it is sacred scripture and have included them in their canon as Holy Spirit inspired works.

What about the deuterocanon then? Which version of the Old Testament? Edited and canonized by whom (i.e. Alexandria, Jamnia)? So on and so forth.

The fact is scholars have critically examined all of the texts in the Old and New Testaments. The conclusions they have reached about many of these books are the same as some works outside of the canon. You can’t accept one methods used in one place and then arbitrarily dismiss them in another as you have. That isn’t a logically defensible position, and your criticisms of the Protoevangelium are based on logical examination of the evidence we have at hand now.

The PVJ is not a canonical book it is a work of holy fiction. The very premise that the book is in the same catagory as the canon is absurd therefore it is apples and oranges.

It is apples and oranges as I said. The Protoevangelium is not a canonical document, it is a piece of tradition to fill in the details of the life of the Theotokos. You may believe it is “holy fiction”, which is fine. Just understand that how you arrived at the conclusion that it is holy fiction is the same method that has undermined the authority of the Bible itself in modern critical scholarship.

I’ve said before, sola scriptura arose in the Lutheran protest. The Bible was elevated to the preeminent place of authority. It’s demise from that position began a few hundred years later in the Protestant universities of Tubingen and Halle, when Protestant scholars began the historical-critical method of studying the Bible. It is ironic to me that the seeds of its own destruction were sown in to Protestantism from the start.

[ExOrienteLux]

And this thread, ladies and gents, is a prime example of why the Church's teachings about the Theotokos have generally been 'secret' teachings: i.e. not taught until after a catechumen is baptised/chrismated.

It really takes one who has the mind of the Church to understand the teachings about her. I know that I certainly didn't accept many of our doctrines about her until a few weeks before I was chrismated, and then everything suddenly fell into place.

-Philip.

[Rilian]

And this thread, ladies and gents, is a prime example of why the Church's teachings about the Theotokos have generally been 'secret' teachings: i.e. not taught until after a catechumen is baptised/chrismated.

Philip, these were not presented to me as "secret teachings", and I think that term has negative connotations for a number of reasons. The primary one being the gnostics made use of secret teachings that only initiates had access to. We talked quite a bit with our priest about the various traditions regarding the Theotokos, because it was a problem area for my wife.

I think the church should be upfront about what it believes and not hold any surprised for people. That could be disastrous.

It really takes one who has the mind of the Church to understand the teachings about her. I know that I certainly didn't accept many of our doctrines about her until a few weeks before I was chrismated, and then everything suddenly fell into place.

I agree that to fully appreciate any teaching of the church, the mind of the church is required. It's good that you came to terms with things right before your chrismation, some people need their questions answered long before then though.

[Matrona]

Philip, these were not presented to me as "secret teachings", and I think that term has negative connotations for a number of reasons. The primary one being the gnostics made use of secret teachings that only initiates had access to. We talked quite a bit with our priest about the various traditions regarding the Theotokos, because it was a problem area for my wife.

They weren't held back from me, either! I would have been very suspicious of them if they had been!

I think the church should be upfront about what it believes and not hold any surprised for people. That could be disastrous.

That's right! I would have been much more suspicious of Orthodoxy if this sort of thing hadn't been available to me.

[ExOrienteLux]

I just reread my post, and I see I left out one very important word:

And this thread, ladies and gents, is a prime example of why the Church's teachings about the Theotokos have historically been 'secret' teachings: i.e. not taught until after a catechumen is baptised/chrismated.

Oops...

[choirfiend]

Heck, the 2nd half of the Liturgy was "secret" at one point...the Creed was secret...It's true that full teachings were taught to catechumen (ppl who were going to become Christian) over time, and definitely wasn't known by non-Christians except when the need arose to defend Christians...like when ppl thought we were baby-eaters. I think it is obvious that teachings about Christ come first and need to be understood to appreciate teachings about the world, sin,salvation, the Church, Mary, the saints, all of it.


reminds me of a story...Fr. Tom had a man come to him and say "I'm interested but you need to know I'm gay and I think it's fine." Fr. Tom said "ok, tell me what you believe about Christ." The man sputtered and said "No, you dont understand, I'm gay and dont think theres anything wrong with it." Fr. Tom said, "well, ok, but we can't begin to touch on that until we talk about Christ. Tell me what you believe about Christ." The man, at the end of their interview, turned to Fr. Tom and said "Ive been to every kind of church and religion, and you're the first one who didn't either tell me that being gay was perfectly ok or tell me to get out of their office."

It comes down to Christ first. What do you believe about Christ?

btw, the man became Orthodox and lives a celibate life.

[Ragamuffins]

Ragamuffins, all I can say is you’re not applying your arguments consistenly.
Sure I am you are just not paying attention to what I am saying.

What about the deuterocanon then? Which version of the Old Testament? Edited and canonized by whom (i.e. Alexandria, Jamnia)? So on and so forth.
I already said that I accepted the DC because the church said it was true, so I do not understand your point.

That isn’t a logically defensible position, and your criticisms of the Protoevangelium are based on logical examination of the evidence we have at hand now.
Because I live now, I examine the documents now, with the evidence we have of these documents now. Should I just ignore the truth about these documents and accept at face value the absurdity of them? No, I think not. God gave me a brain, and I intend to use it not just fall into lock step when
things don't make sense. In other words I am not one to just pretend that there is no spoon when it is right in front of me.

Please take a brief second and read what I have written. I have said that I accept the OT with the DC even when the scholars have said that they find faults with them because the church has said that they were true.

Now the church has not canonized this work of fiction, therefore I feel I am validated in saying that this work is indeed spurious at best. It just so happens that scholars agree with me, but even if they didn't this story has way too many holes in it to be accepted as filling in any gaps or to be taken seriously.

That is just my opinion, based on the evidence at hand and I am done with this topic as I am getting the feeling that it is a never ending discussion and I don't care enough about it to continue.

[Rilian]

Sure I am you are just not paying attention to what I am saying.

That is an unfair accusation.

I already said that I accepted the DC because the church said it was true, so I do not understand your point.

My point is this is simply begging the question on whose authority you make this assumption, i.e. whose canon? The Catholic Church, what the Protestants believe, the Old Testament Canon of the Masoretes, the Septuagint and so forth. That is an important point, because your using the marker of canonicity as your line in the sand.

Because I live now, I examine the documents now, with the evidence we have of these documents now. Should I just ignore the truth about these documents and accept at face value the absurdity of them? No, I think not. God gave me a brain, and I intend to use it not just fall into lock step when
things don't make sense. In other words I am not one to just pretend that there is no spoon when it is right in front of me.

You're fighting a straw man of your own making here. All I'm saying is if you use the modern evidence to examine one text, you probably have to face up to the fact that the methods used can undermine the authority of other texts. It doesn't matter for the sake of argument if they are canonical or not, that is an arbitrary boundary once you move in to the world of critical scholarship.

Please take a brief second and read what I have written. I have said that I accept the OT with the DC even when the scholars have said that they find faults with them because the church has said that they were true.

So you accept the modern evidence in order criticize one text and if you ignored this evidence you would be being spoon fed falsities and not using your critical sense of reason. Yet on the other hand you unquestioningly accept the canon of the church (whatever canon that it may be) and feel free to look past any criticisms of it.

Oookay.

Now the church has not canonized this work of fiction, therefore I feel I am validated in saying that this work is indeed spurious at best.

The church did not canonize a number of important texts that are well worth reading such as the Epistles of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. They form an important part of the tradition of the church.

That is just my opinion, based on the evidence at hand and I am done with this topic as I am getting the feeling that it is a never ending discussion and I don't care enough about it to continue.

Fair enough.

[prodromos]

The church may not have made the PJ part of the canon, but the church has made information contained therein part of the liturgical canon, so to speak. Afterall, we have a feast day celebrating Mary's entry into the temple as a child as well as icons depicting the conception of Mary by her parents Joachim and Anna. Her parents are also remembered at the end of every Divine Liturgy (at least they are in Greece).

John

[Matrona]

The church may not have made the PJ part of the canon, but the church has made information contained therein part of the liturgical canon, so to speak. Afterall, we have a feast day celebrating Mary's entry into the temple as a child as well as icons depicting the conception of Mary by her parents Joachim and Anna. Her parents are also remembered at the end of every Divine Liturgy (at least they are in Greece).

John
The same people who canonized the Bible itself also said that the PJ was not canonical, but that it was reliable in terms of biographical information, IIRC.

[Ragamuffins]

Well I guess I can never be an Orthodox then if it means that I will have to believe in fanciful spurious texts. So be it.

Thanks all for your time. I appreciate your help on my spiritual journey, answering all of my questions, and being honest and sincere in your responses.

PS: Rilian I wasn't kidding when I said I was done talking about the subject so you do get the final word, if that is what you were looking for.

[Rilian]

PS: Rilian I wasn't kidding when I said I was done talking about the subject so you do get the final word, if that is what you were looking for.

I apologize. I quoted your text block and responded to the points you made and then got to the last line. My intention was not to one up you, but to reply to the points you made.

All I can tell you is that belief in the literality of the Protoevangelium is not a cardinal element of the faith. The fact that the Theotokos was ever-virgin is. The text is a piece of the tradition of the church which fills in some of the details of her life. Like the canonical texts, there may be errors or contradictions. I am not attempting in any way to convince you to look at Orthodoxy any further by saying this.

I hope you never cross the line of looking inside the canon for what may be spurious or fanciful as you say.

[Ragamuffins]

I apologize. I quoted your text block and responded to the points you made and then got to the last line. My intention was not to one up you, but to reply to the points you made.
If that was your intent, then okay. But by responding in a way that would lead me to challenge your assumptions of what I mean or meant, I took that as your attempt to keep the conversation going.

All I can tell you is that belief in the literality of the Protoevangelium is not a cardinal element of the faith.
But it is told as fact or it "fills in the blanks". I am sorry but I do not agree, that a work of fiction in any way fills in the blanks or that the blanks even need filling in for that matter.

The fact that the Theotokos was ever-virgin is.
Well there you go, another reason. IF she was ever virgin it is none of our business. IF she wasn't it is none of our business. That is between her and God. Whether she was or wasn't should not EVER be a tenant of the faith, because in the end it does not matter to anyone but her and God. If she was not ever virgin this does not mean that she was less of a saint or that she was a bad person. Forcing someone to say, yeah she was when they don't either care or believe it just because some church fathers believed it is wrong. I will never, and I mean never say she was, because I do not know if she was or not and I do not care if she was or was not.

If it is truth, it is her business not ours...

I hope you never cross the line of looking inside the canon for what may be spurious or fanciful as you say.
So why insult me? Because I call a work of fiction spurious, outlandish and even impish does not mean that I would even consider the Holy scriptures to be so.

Big difference here between fact and fiction. Gospels: fact / PV: Fiction.

I hope you do cross the line at some point and admit to yourself that you don't have to believe something just because people tell you you have to.

[xristos.anesti]

Lord have mercy.

[Dust and Ashes]

Lord have mercy.

:crosseo: :prayer: :prayer: :prayer: :crosseo:

[Michael the Iconographer]

Happy birthday!

Moses

Thank you Moses!

[Maximus]

Well there you go, another reason. IF she was ever virgin it is none of our business. IF she wasn't it is none of our business. That is between her and God. Whether she was or wasn't should not EVER be a tenant of the faith, because in the end it does not matter to anyone but her and God. If she was not ever virgin this does not mean that she was less of a saint or that she was a bad person. Forcing someone to say, yeah she was when they don't either care or believe it just because some church fathers believed it is wrong. I will never, and I mean never say she was, because I do not know if she was or not and I do not care if she was or was not.

If it is truth, it is her business not ours...

Huh?

The same Church that teaches us which books belong in the Bible also teaches us that the Mother of God is Ever-Virgin.

Big difference here between fact and fiction. Gospels: fact / PV: Fiction.

Mary Ever-Virgin: fact.

Gospels: fact.

How do we know?

The Church and her Holy Tradition.

The Protoevangelium might be pious fiction, but no good historian dismisses fiction outright as a source of information about religious and social customs and practices. Examples abound.

[Ragamuffins]

The "church" has no right to teach anything of the status of Mary's hymen. No right. It is disrespectful and downright rude to keep bringing up the "virgin" aspect of the life of Mary the mother of God.

Holy tradition says that she was and uses fictional works done 100 years after she died to fill in the blanks of her life. What the heck do we need the blanks of her life filled in for? If you want to fill in some blanks how about the guy that really matters... Jesus. Either way this story does not fill in any blanks, as it is a fictional account of someones idea of what could have happend...

Believe what you want, it is your right, just don't try and convince me of this as fact because it is an old tradition.

[Rilian]

I apologize for giving offense, it was not my intent. I would answer your responses but you have asked not to continue this.

God bless you on your journey Ragamuffins.

[prodromos]

The "church" has no right to teach anything of the status of Mary's hymen.The church hasn't taught anything regarding the status of Mary's hymen. Good grief Bud! We can talk about Christ being a virgin without any reference to His genitals, but as soon as we talk about Mary's virginity you break out the anatomy handbook. You seem to be getting a little carried away in my opinion. I am close friends with several women who have taken a vow of celibacy (nuns). They are all virgins, and yet the status of their hymens never becomes a topic for conversation. Why do you even suggest that we would treat Mary's virginity any differently?


John

[xristos.anesti]

I agree with you John.

As an answer to what Ragamuffins has been chopping out since his latest "wall hit":

Church has Authority to do anything she wants. She is Body of the Living God. If you do not like it, tough luck. I don't mind people asking questions, but to be honest, I am kinda sick of you carrying on as you do.

If you can not deal with it, call whatever the number is of someone who cares.

This thread is about what Orthodox think about Theotokos and not what you think about her.

Everyone here is bending backwards to accomodate your oppinion, because they are good people and hosts; while you are just pushing.

That is just not on.

[Ragamuffins]

I am going to take the high road here...

xristos.anesti you need to grow up ina hurry. If we were face to face you would not speak in such ways to me, so do not hide behind your keyboard and berate me. Not everyone can accept these things at face value, not everyone will. I will ask the tough questions, here or elsewhere it does not matter to me. If you choose not to answer them so be it, someone else will. I have been just as respectful to everyone else here, and though my opinions have perhaps made some of you uneasy, I have not crossed the line as you did in making it personal. Attacking me for what I believe does nothing but make you look small.

The church does not have the authority to impose on anyone its own truths if these truths are not truths in the first place.

[Ragamuffins]

The church hasn't taught anything regarding the status of Mary's hymen. Good grief Bud! We can talk about Christ being a virgin without any reference to His genitals, but as soon as we talk about Mary's virginity you break out the anatomy handbook. You seem to be getting a little carried away in my opinion. I am close friends with several women who have taken a vow of celibacy (nuns). They are all virgins, and yet the status of their hymens never becomes a topic for conversation. Why do you even suggest that we would treat Mary's virginity any differently?


John
You bring up Jesus, as a virgin. When was the last time you referred to Jesus as Ever virgin or eternal virgin? WHile we take it as a fact that Jesus was a virgin, since we have no record of Him being married, we do not accentuate that fact why? No reason to? Of course not. We can and do point out the fact that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth as it was prophsied. The prophecy does not say the eteranl or ever virgin, but a virgin. This we all agree on, she was a virgin before she had Christ. But to carry and say she was always a virgin is .... what does that have to do with us?

This is the point I am trying to make and hopefully we can end this once and for all. Making a point of Mary being a virgin everytime she is mentioned is obsessive in my eyes. Whether you agree or not is not matter to me, calling her Blessed is all I will do as that is what she said of herself in the magnificat.

[Kolya]

The church does not have the authority to impose on anyone its own truths if these truths are not truths in the first place.

Fair enough Bud, but Truth is in the eye of the beholder. It depends on where you are standing as to how it appears to you.
Take it easy. I've told you the difficulties I had. I understand where you're coming from. Step back a bit and take a deep breath, and just go let God talk to you now.
Lets leave it at that for now. And my invitation still stands. PM me anytime. I can handle anything you wish to throw at me.:)

[choirfiend]

Ah, but the point being that the Church does not teach anything but Truth, for it is the Body of Christ, who is Truth, led by the Holy Spirit in worship of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The gates of hell shall not prevail, and untruth will not be taught, else it is not the Church. This is the meaning of the Church--the sanctuary of Truth where heresy and lies cannot be perpetuated. One must believe God's promise to send the Holy Spirit, for if there is not a church teaching the truth left anywhere, then God is a liar and the devil has prevailed. There are not "truths", there is "Truth", and "Truth" is a person, Christ. Don't you want to know the Truth; the correct and god-revealed beliefs about Christ, and also importantly, how we as the created may come into communion with the very God? If you believe God's promise, then you just need to do all you can to seek after the Church. Orthodoxy can pretty well prove that the beliefs held now are the beliefs held always, everywhere, by all.

One thing to consider, Ragamuffins, is that St. Ephraim believed in the Church, and believed her teachings, both those she has made dogma (because they are essential to faith and salvation in God) and those she has never had to dogmaticize, yet are also true.

This topic, though much misunderstood, is peripheral to the canon of belief. When someone enters the Orthodox Church, their statement of belief is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Ragamuffins, I'd start there.

[NewToLife]

The church does not have the authority to impose on anyone its own truths if these truths are not truths in the first place.

Of course, any Orthodox would agree with you but then the issue does not arise. The Church teaches truth, the ever virginity of the Theotokos is taught by the Church, it is a truth handed down in the Tradition of the Church.

The Protoevangelium is another thing altogether, a fiction perhaps but nevertheless a part of tradition ( with a small t ), whether it is a rigourously factual account or not is a somewhat redundant question that misses the real issue, it provides information that the Church has verified as accurate and helpful. I would point out that a fictionalised account is perfectly capable of having its basis in fact and it is in this way that many Orthodox view the work.

[Facing East]

I am going to take the high road here...


It's a sad day when someone must announce to a forum that he is on the higher ground

xristos.anesti you need to grow up ina hurry. If we were face to face you would not speak in such ways to me, so do not hide behind your keyboard and berate me.

You know what? From what I've seen you have not been transgressed against. Don't try to be a victim. I don't see any different in tone between what you post and what he posted

Not everyone can accept these things at face value, not everyone will.

No one said you must. But at the same time, you do not need to be combative everytime you run into something in the Orthodox Faith that you just can't understand right away.

I will ask the tough questions, here or elsewhere it does not matter to me. If you choose not to answer them so be it, someone else will.

Hey! For last little while on this forum people have been answering your questions - and with a good spirit too. Now all of the sudden you are faulting them just because you do not want to accept their answers based on your terms? It isn't xristos.anesti that needs to grow up. You really do need to take a step back and re-evaluate your spirit as it relates to truth-seeking. To me you just seem very upset and irritable - this is not conducive to truth seeking!

Attacking me for what I believe does nothing but make you look small.

You need to realize that you have said some things on here in the last week that are pretty belittling to others as far as what they believe. Basic primary school rules still apply here man: if you don't want people to be mean to you - don't be mean to them. Funny how some of those laws are so timeless!

The church does not have the authority to impose on anyone its own truths if these truths are not truths in the first place.

No one is doing that here. But as the pillar and foundation of the Truth the Church has every right to speak the truth and speak agaisnt what is false.

[NewToLife]

The prophecy does not say the eteranl or ever virgin, but a virgin.

Just a point but Orthodox would not agree with your point, from an Orthodox viewpoint it is quite clear that the ever virginity of the Theotokos is prophecised in Ezekiel 44 1-3.

[choirfiend]

You bring up Jesus, as a virgin. When was the last time you referred to Jesus as Ever virgin or eternal virgin? WHile we take it as a fact that Jesus was a virgin, since we have no record of Him being married, we do not accentuate that fact why? No reason to? Of course not. We can and do point out the fact that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth as it was prophsied. The prophecy does not say the eteranl or ever virgin, but a virgin. This we all agree on, she was a virgin before she had Christ. But to carry and say she was always a virgin is .... what does that have to do with us?


It actually has nothing to do with us--and everything to do with Christ. It is a statement of Christ's great divinity, holiness, and magnificence. God consecrates. He renews, transforms, and makes our very bodies sacred temples through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in baptism. The Theotokos' body was a sacred temple with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the dwelling place of the Most High-Christ our Lord. It is a step on the way to denying the Divinity of Christ (a heresy which promulgated in many ways over time) to say that the place "made more spacious than the heavens" because she "contained the Uncontainable God" would become a defiled temple, not dedicated only to God. It's kinda like saying that a woman monastic who has pledged her vows would renege on them--only this woman monastic had the Very God in her. To say she would renege on that becomes a point of disrepect to God and His Grace. And we don't believe that someone instilled with the indwelling of God Himself, who had the experience of giving birth to God, who served her God faithfully all her days, would be anything but God's temple.

That the woman who was uniquely prepared to say "Yes! Lord, let Thy will be done" where Eve said "No, let me do my will," and whose body was the throne of God would no longer be His throne after His birth. There is the prophecy that says "A virgin shall give birth" and there is also the prophecy that says "“This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut." It is shut because of the Lord, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The ground where God talked to Moses was hallowed. The ground where God dwells is hallowed--including the ground of the virgin's womb. It is because God is Holy that the Theotokos is ever-virgin. It's ALL about Christ.

[Kolya]

This topic, though much misunderstood, is peripheral to the canon of belief. When someone enters the Orthodox Church, their statement of belief is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Ragamuffins, I'd start there.

:amen: AND :amen:

Bud, just stick to the basics of Christ our Salvation for now, and our Triune God. As I told you, the rest comes later and falls into place by itself. Don't push to understand it now if you're not ready to.
And we all still love you very much, and you are in my daily prayers!

[Fotina]

I am going to take the high road here...

The church does not have the authority to impose on anyone its own truths if these truths are not truths in the first place.

The Church does not impose, each is free to submit or reject.

To give Orthodoxy a fair investigation, please find a parish and try to attend a full liturgical year of services, meet the priest and seek his guidance, attend an inquirer's class.

It's a disservice to yourself and Orthodoxy to base your opinion on anything less.

Fotina

[Ioan cel Nou]

Just a point but Orthodox would not agree with your point, from an Orthodox viewpoint it is quite clear that the ever virginity of the Theotokos is prophecised in Ezekiel 44 1-3.

A very good point.

James

[Orthosdoxa]

Right on, choirfiend. The dwelling place of the Most High God remaining pure is absolutely more than just a side point. It has everything to do with the Incarnation.

And Bud, have you ever heard of St. Mary of Egypt? She was a whore and pretty much a terrible person, until she became a Christian. She ended up fleeing to the desert to escape the temptations of the city, where she spent the rest of her life in fasting and prayer. Because of this constant communion with God, she ended up being transformed by His Grace. People began to go to the desert to seek her spiritual counsel, knowing how close she was to God. The former whore, towards the end of her life, became known as the "The Wise Virgin"!

No one cared about the status of her hymen, and I'm embarrassed that this point has even been brought up. By the Grace of God, she became pure. And that purity, just like the Theotokos had, was the entire point.

Sex within marriage is not sinful. Marriage is not sinful and is in fact a blessed life. But, as St. Paul tells us in his epistles, virginity is an even higher calling, to those who can live that life. And we honor those who do. To forsake marriage and family to focus entirely on God is indeed "the angelic life". It is not a focus on genitals. It is a focus on purity.

The Theotokos' situation was a little different, as she had a Son, and was betrothed. But her calling was the same, and we honor her for that. My own patron saint, Katherine of Alexandria, was murdered at 18, and was a virgin. Her story is incredible, and honoring her for her insistence of focusing on God, not marrying a man, is not focusing on genitals - God forbid! - but on her heart. There are many saints down throughout history known as so and so the Virgin.

If a guest in your home opened the Bible to a passage you know and love and hocked a big old loogie on it, you might likely would feel a righteous indignation and not want to let that person further descrate holy things within your home. That's how I feel here, Bud. Mary's purity is absolutely scriptural, has everything to do with God putting on flesh, and furthermore is just the Truth. And you are denouncing this in MY home. You are a welcome guest here, and you are even welcome to respectfully question things in order to better understand them. But please don't expect to spit on our Holy Truths and expect us to give you warm fuzzies in return.

LK

(edit: that might just be the best answer of all, Fotina.)

(edit: and Bud, I know about hitting walls in Orthodoxy. Been there, done that. But if you WANT the wall to fall, it eventually will, in the light of Scripture and Holy Tradition.)

[choirfiend]

Being that we are coming up on the beginning of the Church year, Sept 1, it is an excellent time to begin a year of attending services--to see the whole Gospel, to see our cycle of repentence and joy, fasting and feasting, the great celebration of our Lord's Pascha! played out over the course of the year,

[Fotina]

I will ask the tough questions, here or elsewhere it does not matter to me.

You are not the first to "ask the tough questions". After all, the Church has been "Proclaiming the Truth" since Pentecost, and defending it against heresy even unto death to this day.

The questions and challenges have been asked and FULLY answered many times over the millenia, in the Ecumenical Councils, and writings of the Holy Fathers to start. You can study the rest of your life and not exhaust this treasury.

The Church has answers to all your questions and ones you haven't even thought of yet. You are free to ask and totally free to believe or reject the answers.

May the Lord guide and keep you.

Fotina

[Monica, child of God]

The idea of Mary as ever virgin has implications beyond her anatomy and her personal relationship with God. It has theological signifigance. She stands as the bridge between the old covenant and the new. She is the culmination of Israel. All of the begetting throughout the Bible leads to her and from her to Jesus.

So then if we turn to our Old Testament we read the prophets continually reproaching Israel for her idolatry. But interestingly they often call it adultery:

"'I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown… Israel was holy to the LORD…What fault did your fathers find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves…

"If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers— would you now return to me?" declares the LORD.

…Is there any place where you have not been ravished? By the roadside you sat waiting for lovers, sat like a nomad in the desert. You have defiled the land with your prostitution and wickedness. --Jeremiah 2 & 3

But then later we read this:

"I will build you up again and you will be rebuilt, O Virgin Israel. Again you will take up your tambourines and go out to dance with the joyful…Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take. Return, O Virgin Israel, return to your towns." --Jeremiah 31

God is doing what is impossible: He is restoring the virginity of Israel. Mary, the woman to whom the prophets foretold, is the beginning of that new and everlasting virginity. Her virginity represents the purity of the new Israel, the Church made “holy… by the washing with water through the word…without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish…and blameless..

If you chose to believe that Mary is a “tool” of God, necessary only to bring the Messiah into the world that is your choice. But the Church, sees her as part of God’s faithfulness in the fulfilling of His word to Israel.

Monica

[Ragamuffins]

People here might have soft spot for you, because you said that you are interested in Orthodoxy... so I chose my words very carefully... you are a heretic!
You keep typing but all I can see is balh blah blah. Once again, grow up my friend and get some manners.

By the way you are now on ignore...

[RobNJ]

Staff review