I love the Mother of God!

[bbbbbbb]

"Within Catholicism and similar organizations Mary appears to be an integral part of their liturgy while seemingly to be raising her to a level of a fourth member of the Christian hierarchy."

That is false. False and nonsensical, as a description of Catholicism, and equally false and nonsensical as a description of the other ancient Churches not in communion with Rome. In no sense is she a Divine Person, so it is false to imply that she is, somehow, a Person of the Holy Trinity. One should not have to waste time refuting such puerile drivel. She is certainly present in the Liturgy - that is no reason to think of her as anything more than a creature of God: which is what she is. She is a Saint - nothing more.

It is the United States - not Orthodox Christians, not the ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches, & not the Churches in communion with Rome - that has a painting of "The Apotheōsis of Washington". Apotheōsis means "deification". So by the normal logic of Catholic-bashing Fundamentalists, that has to mean that the USA regards a somewhat questionable American rebel & politician, "the father of his country", one of the so-called "founding fathers", is regarded in the US as a deity.

Article, with pictures, of The Apotheosis of Washington here: The Apotheosis of Washington - Wikipedia

There is in London a painting of "The Apotheosis of James I" - appropriate, given his description of kings as "little gods". But because he was a Protestant, and not a Catholic, Catholic-bashing Fundamentalists ignore such language.

The picture can be found here: RCIN 408414 - The Apotheosis of James I

Legally, James 1, was Protestant. However, his wife was thoroughly Catholic, such that he constructed and staffed a Catholic chapel for her in Whitehall Palace. His personal religious views, at best, were ambiguous, but very likely were Catholic.

The concept of the apotheosis of a human being was popular at a time of renewed interest in Classical mythology. It was hardly unusual to depict apotheoses of Classicial individuals such Hercules or Voltaire, or contemporary individuals. Here is the Apotheosis of Voltaire (a French Catholic individual).

 

[The Liturgist]

Legally, James 1, was Protestant. However, his wife was thoroughly Catholic, such that he constructed and staffed a Catholic chapel for her in Whitehall Palace. His personal religious views, at best, were ambiguous, but very likely were Catholic.

Are you talking about James I or Charles I? You know Charles I is venerated in the Anglican calendar as a martyr.

 

[The Liturgist]

If your going to pick one over the other it should be the most important first. God, Jesus. The holy Spirit. Which we shouldn't do because we're supposed to love
equally. Mary wouldn't be on my list if i was playing favorites .

I do greatly hope you are not referring to God the Father as God, while not referring to Jesus, who is God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, as God. Some people do this, and I greatly object to it, because it downplays the Incarnation and the Trinity, and also it can lead some people hearing the phrase to think that Jesus Christ is distinct from God, and so is the Holy Spirit, when in reality all three are God; the use of the word “God” in lieu of God the Father contradicts the Nicene Creed, which expressly states that Jesus Christ is “Very God of Very God” and it could lead some people, particularly in churches that mainly use the Apostles’ Creed or do not recite a creed every Sunday, such as most UMC and Christian Church / Disciples of Christ parishes, to inadvertantly embrace within their minds a private crypto-Arianism.

And if people become privately crypto-Arian, and note that I am not accusing you of this, but rather I am complaining about the popular proliferation by a great many people of the phrase you are using creating a risk factor for crypto-Arianism, it could leave them vulnerable to proselytization by various non-Trinitarian cults such as the J/Ws and Christadelphians.

 

[The Liturgist]

Legally, James 1, was Protestant. However, his wife was thoroughly Catholic, such that he constructed and staffed a Catholic chapel for her in Whitehall Palace. His personal religious views, at best, were ambiguous, but very likely were Catholic.

The concept of the apotheosis of a human being was popular at a time of renewed interest in Classical mythology. It was hardly unusual to depict apotheoses of Classicial individuals such Hercules or Voltaire, or contemporary individuals. Here is the Apotheosis of Voltaire (a French Catholic individual).

I myself really dislike the Apotheosis movement in the 18th and 19th century. I regard the artwork “The Apotheosis of George Washington” in the dome of the US capitol to be completely inappropriate, and the only reason why I am not openly campaigning for its replacement is because of my fear that the iconoclast Woke movement would try to change the portrait to be of someone else, and I do regard it as extremely proper that the portrait in the dome be of George Washington. I just object to the name and the suggestion of apotheosis.

The Orthodox do not believe in apotheosis, which is that men can become, through great deeds, deities worthy of worship, like Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great, who were widely worshipped throughout the regions they conquered. Rather, Theosis maintains the distinction between us and God; it allows us by grace to be Sons of God by adoption, to become gods in a lesser sense, in that we will never be members of the Holy Trinity, but we do become divine in terms of being immortal, but we do not become worthy or deserving of worship, since the divinity we obtain is a gift from God, with Christ willingly enduring the trauma of being born as a man and living and dying as a man in order that he might rise from the dead in glory and ascend to Heaven and show us that a Real Man looks like Him, and that if we follow Him, we can receive resurrection and glorification as gifts from God, according to the will of the Father and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who He sent to help us on our journey.

Indeed I would say they are free gifts, in that they are freely available and require only an effort be made, if one has time and is not dying or in the process of being martyred (if one confesses Christ and is then killed for it, as happened to the Ghanaian who was martyred with the 18 Copts in Libya about a decade ago, that is the Baptism of Desire, although since Ghana has a Christian majority and only a minority of Muslims, it is likely, but by no means certain, that the man already was a Christian before his martyrdom. But conversely since he was working in Libya, a dangerous Muslim country, he might well have been from 1/3rd of the Ghanaian population who is Muslim (and at most, 10% adhere to indigenous religions of various forms). The Christian Ghanaians are the most visible, however, as they decorate their houses and their businesses with quotations from the Bible (if they own a taxi or a minibus, they will put the quotation such as “PRAY WITHOUT CEASING” on their vehicle).” Indeed in Accra there is a famous hair salon with the unintentionally amusing name “Watch and Pray.”

When I was in Ghana, my hotel put, like any decent hotel, emergency evacuation instructions on the door of my room. However this hotel, which was locally owned, also put a Bible verse on the emergency instructions.

I love that country.

 

[The Liturgist]

I love the Theotokos. I have learned to respect her and venerate what she does us and her role with Christ.

Does anyone else feel the same?

Yes!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are you talking about James I or Charles I? You know Charles I is venerated in the Anglican calendar as a martyr.

I am thoroughly embarrassed now. I managed to conflate James I with Charles 1. I realize that the Anglican Church considers Charles 1 to have been a martyr.

Thank you for correcting my error.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I myself really dislike the Apotheosis movement in the 18th and 19th century. I regard the artwork “The Apotheosis of George Washington” in the dome of the US capitol to be completely inappropriate, and the only reason why I am not openly campaigning for its replacement is because of my fear that the iconoclast Woke movement would try to change the portrait to be of someone else, and I do regard it as extremely proper that the portrait in the dome be of George Washington. I just object to the name and the suggestion of apotheosis.

The Orthodox do not believe in apotheosis, which is that men can become, through great deeds, deities worthy of worship, like Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great, who were widely worshipped throughout the regions they conquered. Rather, Theosis maintains the distinction between us and God; it allows us by grace to be Sons of God by adoption, to become gods in a lesser sense, in that we will never be members of the Holy Trinity, but we do become divine in terms of being immortal, but we do not become worthy or deserving of worship, since the divinity we obtain is a gift from God, with Christ willingly enduring the trauma of being born as a man and living and dying as a man in order that he might rise from the dead in glory and ascend to Heaven and show us that a Real Man looks like Him, and that if we follow Him, we can receive resurrection and glorification as gifts from God, according to the will of the Father and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who He sent to help us on our journey.

Indeed I would say they are free gifts, in that they are freely available and require only an effort be made, if one has time and is not dying or in the process of being martyred (if one confesses Christ and is then killed for it, as happened to the Ghanaian who was martyred with the 18 Copts in Libya about a decade ago, that is the Baptism of Desire, although since Ghana has a Christian majority and only a minority of Muslims, it is likely, but by no means certain, that the man already was a Christian before his martyrdom. But conversely since he was working in Libya, a dangerous Muslim country, he might well have been from 1/3rd of the Ghanaian population who is Muslim (and at most, 10% adhere to indigenous religions of various forms). The Christian Ghanaians are the most visible, however, as they decorate their houses and their businesses with quotations from the Bible (if they own a taxi or a minibus, they will put the quotation such as “PRAY WITHOUT CEASING” on their vehicle).” Indeed in Accra there is a famous hair salon with the unintentionally amusing name “Watch and Pray.”

When I was in Ghana, my hotel put, like any decent hotel, emergency evacuation instructions on the door of my room. However this hotel, which was locally owned, also put a Bible verse on the emergency instructions.

I love that country.

I agree with you concerning the cultural usage of apotheosis. I rather doubt that anyone actually believed it to be seriously true. Even the far right of the political spectrum would need to take a big gulp to assert that George Washington became (a) God after his death.

The information regarding Ghana was very interesting. Thank you.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am thoroughly embarrassed now. I managed to conflate James I with Charles 1. I realize that the Anglican Church considers Charles 1 to have been a martyr.

Thank you for correcting my error.

Forgive me, I did not mean to cause any embarrassment on your part. I wasn’t sure which one you were talking about. In the case of James I my understanding is that he was on the upper edge of the 17th century High Church Anglicanism, with beliefs and praxis similiar to those of Archbishop Laud. Less high church than the 19th century Tractarians and Anglo Catholics*




*The work of the Anglo Catholics in relieving urban poverty, together with that of the Salvation Army, which I also love because of their music, although it is unfortunate that General William Booth let his Quaker wife talk him into departing from Methodist theology regarding the sacraments*, for the teaching of Wesley emphasized at a minimum a weekly reception of Holy Communion, but this had been de-emphasized by the Methodist Episcopal Church and the British Methodists in the 19th century, with most Methodist denominations either diluting or setting aside John Wesley’s recension of the BCP, the Sunday Service Book. So you had two extremes in terms of sacramental theology: the Salvation Army, which was influenced by the teachings of George Fox in terms of not celebrating in any corporeal way Baptism and the Holy Communion, and the Anglo Catholics, who like Wesley, celebrated Holy Communion at least weekly, and endured persecution and imprisonment for that great and terrible crime of wearing chasubles, of which I myself would be an offender given the large number in my possession, were I an Anglican priest (which is one office I have not yet held, but there are a number of Anglican provinces I would love to work for). Likewise, the Salvation Army experienced persecution, including violence from brewery-financed mobs of drunkards known as the “Skeleton Army” as well as townships, who passed ordinances targeting Salvation Army marching bands, making them subject to arrest, because in their view it was better to trample on the rights of the Salvation Army than to risk an episode of riotous behavior breaking out due to their opposition, the Skeleton Army. The persecution of the Anglo Catholics and the Salvation Army ultimately resulted in judicial rulings and the passage of laws which greatly improved the freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. I have extreme admiration for both groups.

**John Wesley, who also supported the first 18th century efforts to address the then-new problem of urban poverty as a result of the dawn of the industrial revolution drawing people away from the stability and autonomy of the rural life of European and American “yeoman farmers” as Jefferson called them after the end of Manorial serfdom.**

***I would be sympathetic to Jefferson’s agrarianism were it not for his own experience of it being buoyed by slavery and his failure, unlike Washington, to have his slaves manumitted according to his last will and testament because of his failure to manage his personal debts, and also the fact that ignoring or seeking to reverse the industrial revolution was the worst economic policy ever advocated in the US. Jefferson was a talented architect and speech-writer (I cannot say “orator” because the word oration, oratory and orator refer to prayer, places for prayer and those who lead prayers, and Jefferson was a deist with views of our Lord more extreme than those of many contemporary Unitarians), but was not a man of exemplary personal morality since we know via DNA testing he fathered children with some of his slaves. That said humility requires me to state that I am the worst of sinners and am not presuming to judge Thomas Jefferson or to speculate as to his soteriological status; I hope Christ our True God and Pantocrator does have mercy on him and pardons him at the last day, since if Jefferson is pardoned, there is hope for me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Forgive me, I did not mean to cause any embarrassment on your part. I wasn’t sure which one you were talking about. In the case of James I my understanding is that he was on the upper edge of the 17th century High Church Anglicanism, with beliefs and praxis similiar to those of Archbishop Laud. Less high church than the 19th century Tractarians and Anglo Catholics*




*The work of the Anglo Catholics in relieving urban poverty, together with that of the Salvation Army, which I also love because of their music, although it is unfortunate that General William Booth let his Quaker wife talk him into departing from Methodist theology regarding the sacraments*, for the teaching of Wesley emphasized at a minimum a weekly reception of Holy Communion, but this had been de-emphasized by the Methodist Episcopal Church and the British Methodists in the 19th century, with most Methodist denominations either diluting or setting aside John Wesley’s recension of the BCP, the Sunday Service Book. So you had two extremes in terms of sacramental theology: the Salvation Army, which was influenced by the teachings of George Fox in terms of not celebrating in any corporeal way Baptism and the Holy Communion, and the Anglo Catholics, who like Wesley, celebrated Holy Communion at least weekly, and endured persecution and imprisonment for that great and terrible crime of wearing chasubles, of which I myself would be an offender given the large number in my possession, were I an Anglican priest (which is one office I have not yet held, but there are a number of Anglican provinces I would love to work for). Likewise, the Salvation Army experienced persecution, including violence from brewery-financed mobs of drunkards known as the “Skeleton Army” as well as townships, who passed ordinances targeting Salvation Army marching bands, making them subject to arrest, because in their view it was better to trample on the rights of the Salvation Army than to risk an episode of riotous behavior breaking out due to their opposition, the Skeleton Army. The persecution of the Anglo Catholics and the Salvation Army ultimately resulted in judicial rulings and the passage of laws which greatly improved the freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. I have extreme admiration for both groups.

**John Wesley, who also supported the first 18th century efforts to address the then-new problem of urban poverty as a result of the dawn of the industrial revolution drawing people away from the stability and autonomy of the rural life of European and American “yeoman farmers” as Jefferson called them after the end of Manorial serfdom.**

***I would be sympathetic to Jefferson’s agrarianism were it not for his own experience of it being buoyed by slavery and his failure, unlike Washington, to have his slaves manumitted according to his last will and testament because of his failure to manage his personal debts, and also the fact that ignoring or seeking to reverse the industrial revolution was the worst economic policy ever advocated in the US. Jefferson was a talented architect and speech-writer (I cannot say “orator” because the word oration, oratory and orator refer to prayer, places for prayer and those who lead prayers, and Jefferson was a deist with views of our Lord more extreme than those of many contemporary Unitarians), but was not a man of exemplary personal morality since we know via DNA testing he fathered children with some of his slaves. That said humility requires me to state that I am the worst of sinners and am not presuming to judge Thomas Jefferson or to speculate as to his soteriological status; I hope Christ our True God and Pantocrator does have mercy on him and pardons him at the last day, since if Jefferson is pardoned, there is hope for me.

The religious views of various English monarchs during the Tudor and Jacobean period have only a passing similarity to subsequent developments such as the High Church movement of the nineteenth century. I think that they were attempting to formulate what form religion ought to take following Henry VIII. Hence, there was the Westminster Assembly which, in theory, met to establish a doctrinal formulation for the English church. Although it succeeded in its task, its Confession was subsequently rejected in favor of the 39 Articles. As a result, Scotland embraced the Westminster Confession and Presbyterianism while, on the other hand through French influence, retained a significant Catholic presence.

When I first encountered the social work in the slums of the High Church Anglicans, primarily at All Saints Margaret Street in London, I was perplexed. It seemed that a theology that was exceedingly focused on ritual and its associated trappings ought to have little to no concern about the lower classes. By contrast, there was the Low Church movement, with its successful campaign to abolish slavery which, fortunately for England, was never the major economic factor that it was in the United States. However, with the High Church Anglicans it is evident that their faith was sincere and put to the test in alleviating the lot of the lowest classes in English society.

I agree with you concerning the Salvation Army. One other curious wrinkle is William Booth's succession. With his daughters who were, by all accounts, faithful Christians, he had to make the decision to pass the reins of leadership to talented and faithful men or to his daughters. As a loving father, he passed the reins to them, as well as to his son. That led to reasonable charges that he was creating a personal dynasty to his everlasting glory. The problem I have is in the nature of leadership. Until then females were not ordained in orthodox Christian churches with solid scriptural authority. We do not know how much actual influence his wife, Catherine, had in the matter and how much came from the Quakers which had female leadership for a very long time. In any event, Booth skirted a lot of issues by proclaiming that the Salvation Army is not a church nor does it ordain priests or ministers. However, as a parachurch organization, it is my opinion that it is not free to pick and choose from scripture as to its doctrines and praxis.

As for Thomas Jefferson as architect, much has been made of this aspect of his life. As with many in the upper classes of English society, such as Lord Burlington, Jefferson was infected with the human love of building. He had the advantage of foreign travel, primarily to France where he encountered architects of the ancien regime who greatly influenced his taste with the eventual result that he completely bankrupted himself with his beloved Monticello. Jefferson was not a creative architect at all. By contrast, in France we see Nicholas Ledoux and Charles Boulee during the French Revolution who were designing some quite amazing buildings. Jefferson's architectural tastes were probably about twenty years behind those in England and France, but still about twenty years ahead of the situation in North America. He was an effective propagandist for the revival of Roman Classical architecture which, interestingly, was soon overwhelmed by the Greek Revival from England following the War of 1812.

 

[The Liturgist]

As for Thomas Jefferson as architect, much has been made of this aspect of his life. As with many in the upper classes of English society, such as Lord Burlington, Jefferson was infected with the human love of building. He had the advantage of foreign travel, primarily to France where he encountered architects of the ancien regime who greatly influenced his taste with the eventual result that he completely bankrupted himself with his beloved Monticello. Jefferson was not a creative architect at all. By contrast, in France we see Nicholas Ledoux and Charles Boulee during the French Revolution who were designing some quite amazing buildings. Jefferson's architectural tastes were probably about twenty years behind those in England and France, but still about twenty years ahead of the situation in North America. He was an effective propagandist for the revival of Roman Classical architecture which, interestingly, was soon overwhelmed by the Greek Revival from England following the War of 1812.

Yes, I would agree with much of that. As architects go, I would say that Thomas Jefferson arrived at some interesting ideas and visually pleasing shapes, which we see in Monticello and the University of Virginia, both of which I have visited, and which we see reflected in the . My experience of Monticello was however marred by the slave quarters. By the way we ought to do a thread on church architecture in Traditional Theology, which I think is the ideal forum for discussing liturgical arts such as church architecture (and which has always had Reformed participation, for example, from Hedrick), due to its relative freedom from polemics.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, I would agree with much of that. As architects go, I would say that Thomas Jefferson arrived at some interesting ideas and visually pleasing shapes, which we see in Monticello and the University of Virginia, both of which I have visited, and which we see reflected in the . My experience of Monticello was however marred by the slave quarters. By the way we ought to do a thread on church architecture in Traditional Theology, which I think is the ideal forum for discussing liturgical arts such as church architecture (and which has always had Reformed participation, for example, from Hedrick), due to its relative freedom from polemics.

Monticello is an amazing cash cow. I have visited it twice. Several decades ago it was the quintessential house museum - beautifully restored and staffed. I visited this past year and found a house that has been restored to an inch of its life. One of the problems in such a case is to what period such a building ought to be restored. In this case it is quite problematic because Jefferson kept tinkering with the house, even adding and subtracting major elements. If one follows its history one can see how various influences were at work in his architectural development. The house as it stands today is probably as close as one can possible get to its probable appearance at the end of his life.

As for the slave quarters, it is a simple fact of life that wealthy Virginia planters owned slaves and typically housed them in makeshift quarters. At Mount Vernon, as well as Monticello, the slave quarters disappeared long ago. At Monticello they have been reconstructed as accurately as possible in order to help balance the truth of history and not pretend that it never existed.

One of the problems with the Woke movement in their efforts to expunge American history of all traces of racism is that, taken to an extreme, both Mount Vernon and Monticello would be completely razed and all knowledge of both men obliterated from the historic record. In the process, of course, that would also eliminate all history of racial relations prior to the Woke movement. It is a Damocles sword.

 

[RileyG]

Are you talking about James I or Charles I? You know Charles I is venerated in the Anglican calendar as a martyr.

especially for those high Church Anglicans and Methodists....many Protestants do not necessarily venerate saints, sadly.

 

[David Lamb]

especially for those high Church Anglicans and Methodists....many Protestants do not necessarily venerate saints, sadly.

No, because in the bible, "saint" is never once used as a title (as in "Saint Paul", "Saint Matthew," etc.) It's a word applied to every Christian.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, because in the bible, "saint" is never once used as a title (as in "Saint Paul", "Saint Matthew," etc.) It's a word applied to every Christian.

Indeed, but since we don’t know which Christians among those presently alive will persevere in the faith and which ones will fall away, it can really be reliably applied only in a generic case or with regards to those who have reposed and are known to be in Heaven for various reasons (for example, they were martyred, which is where origin of this term first came into being, with the phrase “The Holy Martyrs and Confessors” being extremely ancient.

By the way as you probably are away “Saint” literally means “Holy.” This is why there are churches in London with names like Saint Sepulchre without New Gate, a church dedicated to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and Saint Saviors. It is now a bit archaic in the English language, and I think a naming format similar to what we already use for churches dedicated to the Holy Trinity or the Holy Cross makes more sense, for example, Holy Apostle Paul Parish Church or the Cathedral of the Holy Protomartyr Stephen or The Convent of the Holy Mother of God. And one will find this format in use in some Orthodox churches, since it is a logical translation of Greek names that begin with “Hagios.”

For example, the main cathedral in Moscow is sometimes called by English speakers “St. Savior’s” which is fine, but it is more frequently called “The Cathedral of the Holy Savior.”

 

[The Liturgist]

especially for those high Church Anglicans and Methodists....many Protestants do not necessarily venerate saints, sadly.

Fortunately many Anglicans do, and the Anglican church is the largest Protestant church, and likewise some Lutherans and Methodists. Lutherans represent the fourth largest denominational group after the Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics (followed by the Reformed and Presbyterians, which I don’t think includes Particular or Calvinist Baptists or Congregationalists, except for former Congregationalist parishes which are now part of uniting churches like the United Reformed Church, the United Church of Canada or the Uniting Church in Australia, but not the United Church of Christ, which is essentially Congregationalist despite having taken on board the Evangelical Reformed Church (the Prussian Calvinist immigrants whose Lutheran counterparts formed what is now the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Lutheran Church of Canada).

 

[David Lamb]

Indeed, but since we don’t know which Christians among those presently alive will persevere in the faith and which ones will fall away, it can really be reliably applied only in a generic case or with regards to those who have reposed and are known to be in Heaven for various reasons (for example, they were martyred, which is where origin of this term first came into being, with the phrase “The Holy Martyrs and Confessors” being extremely ancient.

By the way as you probably are away “Saint” literally means “Holy.” This is why there are churches in London with names like Saint Sepulchre without New Gate, a church dedicated to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and Saint Saviors. It is now a bit archaic in the English language, and I think a naming format similar to what we already use for churches dedicated to the Holy Trinity or the Holy Cross makes more sense, for example, Holy Apostle Paul Parish Church or the Cathedral of the Holy Protomartyr Stephen or The Convent of the Holy Mother of God. And one will find this format in use in some Orthodox churches, since it is a logical translation of Greek names that begin with “Hagios.”

For example, the main cathedral in Moscow is sometimes called by English speakers “St. Savior’s” which is fine, but it is more frequently called “The Cathedral of the Holy Savior.”

Thank you for replying, however nothing you have written negates what I wrote, that biblically, the word "saint" is applied to all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, and never as a superior sort of Christian. I agree that the word translated "saint(s)" means "holy, set apart." My Greek lexicon says: "40 ἅγιος hagios [hag’-ee-os] from hagos (an awful thing) [cf 53, 2282]; adj; TDNT-1:88,14; [{See TDNT 14 }]

AV-holy 161, saints 61, Holy One 4, misc 3; 229

[Holy], characteristic of God, separated to God, worthy of veneration
1) Its highest application is to God himself, in his purity, majesty and glory. [{Lu 1:49 Joh 17:11 Re 4:8 }]
1a) Of things and places which have a claim to reverence as sacred to God, e.g. the Temple: [{Mt 24:15 Heb 9:1 }]
1b) Of persons employed by him, as angels: [{1Th 3:13 marg. }] prophets, [{Lu 1:70 }] apostles, [{Eph 3:5 }
2) Applied to persons as separated to God’s service:
2a) Of Christ: [{Mr 1:24 Ac 4:30 }]
2b) Of Christians: [{Ac 9:13 Ro 1:7 Heb 6:10 Re 5:8 }]
3) In the moral sense of sharing God’s purity: [{Mr 6:20 Joh 17:11 Ac 3:14 Re 3:7 }]
4) Of pure, clean sacrifices and offerings: [{1Co 7:14 Eph 1:4 }"

(my emphasis.)

 

[The Liturgist]

[Holy], characteristic of God, separated to God, worthy of veneration

Precisely. Worthy of veneration. This also includes the Holy Cross, which we venerate in Orthodoxy but do not worship, and the Holy Icons, which we venerate as a means of venerating or worshiping what they depict, but also do not worship.

And since we don’t know who amomg those licing will stay holy, and also the belief in one’s own sainthood is dangerous, on a par with believing one is beyond the hope of salvation, as St. Theophan the Recluse pointed out, both views being particularly destructive forms of prelest, a Patristic and Orthodox theological term meaning spiritual delusion, the only ones we can certainly assign sainthood to are those whose status in the Church Triumphant has been established, for example, the Holy Martyrs.

But that said we do venerate each other among the baptized members after the dismissal of the catechumens as presumptive saints with the Kiss of Peace.

 

[GenemZ]

God is eternal.
Always having been existing.
And, always will be existing.

How can God therefore have a Mother?

Jesus has two natures, not one.
He is both fully man (soul), and fully God in union.

Mary merely provided a body, not the life, that inhabited the body.

When we worship something that is an error, we are worshiping a mere idol.


Truth saves.

 

[RileyG]

God is eternal.
Always having been existing.
And, always will be existing.

How can God therefore have a Mother?

Jesus has two natures, not one.
He is both fully man (soul), and fully God in union.

Mary merely provided a body, not the life, that inhabited the body.

When we worship something that is an error, we are worshiping a mere idol.


Truth saves.

Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is indeed God as you stated.

 

[prodromos]

God is eternal.
Always having been existing.
And, always will be existing.

How can God therefore have a Mother?

By becoming man and being born of a woman.

What exactly do you think a "mother" is?