Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Last edited by HVACTech; 08-20-2014 at 05:15 AM.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Why is that? The first gospel was not even written until ~64-70 AD! The Gospel was preserved by the Church in spoken and iconographic form until that time. There literally is no higher authority on the Gospels than the Church.Originally Posted by lilymc
Lilly, you are the one prooftexting here. She said 'blessed is the womb and blessed are the breasts', and indeed blessed is the womb which contained Him and blessed are the breast which fed Him, for how could they not be having contained the pure and sinless Son of God and having been suckled on by the most pure lips of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The very hem of His garment has holy and cured the woman with the issue of blood. Even St. Peter's handkerchief rose the dead because of the Holy Spirit of God working within Peter. Of course the Virgin's womb and breasts were blessed, for that reason the women proclaimed it! He did not deny that the Virgin's womb was blessed. You are stuck on the modern mistranslation made by modern Protestants which turns the word into 'rather' to imply contradiction. But you are falsely understanding the passage because of this innovative distortion of the Scriptures.
Christ's actual answer according to the original Greek text was (paraphrasing) GREATER then the womb and the breasts is the one who does His will, so indeed the womb and breasts were blessed, and greatest is the woman who had this womb and who had these breasts, for her blessedness and holiness was not limited to these organs of life giving service, but on account of her own free will in perfect obedience to Him. Thus she is thrice blessed.
What you think means little in the overall existence of the universe Lilly, and this is not an insult. This is a humbling truth you need to acknowledge for your own spiritual well being. What you (who are fallible) thinks is in fact different from what the Fathers of the Church taught. Yes, they were fallible too, but they also contained within themselves the Holy Spirit of God. Are you right and they all wrong? Are you abiding in the Holy Spirit more then they? Do you even know anything about their lives to even make a real judgement to compare yourself with them? I implore you to read about the lives of the saints and then you can compare yourself to them and figure out who is the more holier and who the more illumined. And in doing so, you might learn some things which will not only greater strengthen your faith but fill your mind with even greater wonder at the majesty and power of God.Once again, you're arguing something I never stated. Of course Jesus demonstrated love and honor to His mother. Jesus is sinless and wouldn't go against His own word... Of course it is right to honor our parents.
I posted that verse because I think it has a sort of second meaning, it's not merely about the wedding in Cana, but a reminder for ALL people who might take their focus off of God, to - as Mary put it - "Whatever He says to you, do it."
Going back to the verse about the wedding in Cana, Christ performed the wish of His mother, even whilst His hour had not come because of two reasons. Because He loves and honors His mother and this is the righteousness of God, and second because even after expressing His will that is was not time yet, He made a dispensation on account of her perfect obedience in her reply to the servants "Whatever He says to you, do it". She got her wish even when it was not the immediate will of her Son's because she answered in perfect obedience. Saying in effect what she said at the Annunciation 'Not my will, but His will be done', which too is the same thing Christ said in the Garden of Gethsemane.
This perfect and humble obedience and His response demonstrates the power of her intercessions towards her Son, that while we might be tumbling headlong into perdition, she can and does intercede on our behalf. Her prayers do availeth much. Indeed, more than anyone else who has ever lived except for Christ Who answers them. For this reason she is not just merely honored by every apostolic Church as being the greatest Saint, but the very Queen of Heaven, just as her adopted son St. John the Theologian described her in the Book of Revelation.
And would it matter if I posted more and more Scriptures? The ones I post to you now you scoff at and give your own interpretation and say what I write are just the musings of fallible 7th century priests, and then proceed to put your interpretation above them. If you wish to stick to the 27 books of the New Testament as the only source of knowledge about the innumerable wonders of God, then you are free to do so. But you are missing out of a lot my friend. Not saying it is not enough to find the Kingdom of God, but missing a lot nonetheless.Which one are you talking about? I mentioned 3 or 4 things. If you can back those doctrines up biblically - not based only on one verse, and certainly not based only on the words of fallible men just because they were associated with a church... then please do so.
Where does the bible say that Mary is the new ark of the covenant? And where does the bible say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven? The only references to "Queen of Heaven" that I have seen in the bible are spoken about in a negative sense, in Jeremiah. And where does the bible say that we should pray to Mary?
I don't mean to put you on the spot... but you're the one who keeps insisting these things, and then telling others we are wrong.
It has to be based FIRST on the scriptures.... not on what some 7th century priests or church officials said. I'm interested in what the scriptures say, and if you could please post specific verses with the chapter and verse number, that would be helpful.
The Holy Spirit entering into the world in Pentecost comes in towards the end of the New Testament, but the workings of Him in the Church did not end in the last page of Acts. There is much you are ignoring unfortunately and multitudes of saints in the heavens right now whom you have placed yourself above, putting too much confidence in your own mind and your experience above the 2000 year old mind and experience of the Church. If you don't think you need the wisdom of the saints, or their prayers, or that such things are not beneficial, then that is your prerogative. But this great and holy cloud of witnesses stand before the altar of God, offering prayers and incense for the world (Rev 8:4), and do you not know that these same saints will judge the world? (1 Cor 6:2)
Last edited by TER; 08-19-2014 at 11:49 PM.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
a Queen and a King denote Marriage and share of power and responsibility. Jesus is not married to His earthly Mother, but He sure is married to the Bride, His Church. Jesus does not share anything including His power with anyone, living or dead.
Ephesians 2:8-9-
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
You may have missed this from earlier in the thread:
In the Jewish culture, a Davidic King would have his mother as Queen rather than his wife, because he rarely had one wife, but many wives. Sharing power with many wives would be much too difficult, but he had only one mother and she was given the title of Queen. Almost every time a new king is introduced in 1 and 2 Kings, the king’s mother is mentioned. She was a member of the royal court, wore a crown, sat on a throne, and shared in the king’s reign (2 Kings 24:12, 15; Jer. 13:18–20). She acted as counselor to her son (Prov. 31), an advocate of the people, and as an intercessor for the citizens of the kingdom (1 Kings 2:17–20). Since Jesus is a King based on the order of David, it makes sense that His mother would be called Queen.
********
BTW Kevin, Jesus does share His power and even His reign with those who do His will. That is the great news of our salvation as co-heirs and adopted sons of the Kingdom of God. We become by grace what Christ is by nature and grow forever from glory to glory into His image and likeness.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Israel never had a Queen. ( a Queen never ruled Israel) Though it did have some wicked women that attempted to do so.
There have been several Godly women that have had influence,, in several courts.
But they did not rule as Queen.
Last edited by pcosmar; 08-20-2014 at 11:19 AM.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
The members of the royal family had power and reign and influence on the people (and even the King!) even as it was the King who was the supreme leader of the people. Now you are just being argumentative! No one is claiming that the queen or anyone else in the royal family was above the king, but to deny that there were no queens in the history of Israel is silly. The mothers of the kings were by definition queens by virtue of their sons being kings.
Link HERE
Orthodox Christians commemorate the death (Dormition) of the Virgin Mary during the month of August (New Calendar, the 15th, Old Calendar, the 28th). For those for whom such feasts are foreign, it is easy to misunderstand what the Orthodox are about – and to assume that this is simply a feast to Mary because we like that sort of thing. Flippant attitudes fail to perceive the depths of the mystery of our salvation. The Dormition of the Mother of God is one of many doorways into that mystery – all of which are Christ – who alone is our salvation.
The Christian life, as taught by the Scriptures and the fathers, is grounded in the mystery and reality of communion. We do not exist alone, nor do we exist merely as a collection. Our lives are a communion of lives. We share one another in ways that permeate the whole of our being. I am unique, and yet I am also the child of Jim and Nancy, the husband Beth, etc. Though I am unique, so much of who I am and what I am is their lives and the lives of generations of human beings and culture – not just genetic relatives – but all of humanity. Without such knowledge (whether conscious or unconscious), we do not love as we should and will not live as we should. Your life is my life; God help us.
The belief that God became man in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, makes no sense and has but little value apart from the reality of life understood as communion. It is thus crucial that the Creed confesses, “He took flesh of the Virgin Mary and was made man.” The womb of the Virgin was not “borrowed space” which God inhabited until His birth. The womb of the Virgin is also that place and that source by which God “took flesh of the Virgin Mary.”
There are many theological accounts of Christ and His work of salvation that center almost solely upon the idea of Christ as a sacrifice on the Cross, a payment for the penalty of our sins. This account tends to “stand on its own.” There is nothing inherent within Christ’s birth from a Virgin to such a view of the Atonement. Nor is the Virgin seen to have any inherent connection to the saving acts of God as made known to us in the Scriptures. Thus those who profess her virginity in such cases only do so because it is recorded in the Scripture – but they do not do so because they understand its true role in our salvation. They believe in the fact of her virginity, but do not understand its mystery.
Our salvation is not achieved by an objective payment (even if the image of payment may be found in the Scriptures). The unifying teaching of the Scriptures with regard to Christ is that our salvation is through union with Him, through true communion in His life.
His Incarnation (God-become-man) is thus a foundational reality of God’s restoration of our communion with Him. Christ becomes a partaker of our life, that we might become partakers of His. This reality is made profoundly clear in that God not only comes to dwell among us, but comes to do so as a man, having taken flesh of the Virgin Mary. He becomes “flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone” (Ge. 2:23). And yet another image: “And a sword will pierce your own soul also” (Lk. 2:35). Mary is united to Christ in the flesh, and mystically in her soul as well.
Her role in the salvation of the world (through union with Christ) is so profound that it is prophesied in the early chapters of Genesis (Ge. 3:15). She, and the Virgin Birth, are pre-figured repeatedly throughout the Old Testament (as interpreted by the fathers). There is a traditional hymn, sung during the vesting of a Bishop, that makes reference to just a small sample of such prefigurements:
Of old the Prophets aforetime proclaimed thee,
the Golden Vessel, the Staff, the Tablet, the Ark,
the Lampstand, the Table, the Uncut Mountain,
the Golden Censer, the Gate Impassible,
and the Throne of the King,
thee did the Prophets proclaim of old.
Perhaps the greatest collection of such references can be found in the 6th century hymn called the Akathist to the Theotokos.
This prefigurement and its abundant use in the fathers, all flows from the fundamental understanding of salvation as communion. Thus she, as the Mother of God, belongs with Christ. She belongs with Him as the Golden Vessel belonged with the Manna (she is the vessel who contained the Bread of Heaven); she belongs with Him as Aaron’s Rod belongs with the buds which sprang forth (that He should be born from her virginal womb is like the life which springs forth from Aaron’s lifeless rod); she is the Tablet as Christ is the words inscribed; she is the lampstand as Christ Himself is the Light, etc.
As the Creed tells us, Christ died, in accordance with the Scriptures. This does not mean in “accordance with the Gospel writings”, but “in accordance with the Scriptures of the Old Testament” (we first see the phrase in 1 Corinthians 15:3). Through the eyes of the fathers and the Tradition of the Church we begin to see that “in accordance with the Scriptures” is more than the few references that can be found that refer to payment or sacrifice or that point to the Cross. The Gospel given to us includes a very holistic understanding of salvation and its story that unfolds from beginning to end.
The union with the flesh of the Virgin is the union with our humanity – indeed with the whole created order. What Christ takes to Himself in that action, He takes with Himself throughout His ministry, taking it into death and Hades and raising it again with Himself on the third day. Thus St. Paul can say:
Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin (Romans 6:4-6).
These comments on death and resurrection in the context of Baptism, in which “we have been united together,” only make sense in an understanding of salvation as communion.
The death of the Mother of God (for He who was born of her was truly God as well as truly man), commemorated in the Feast of the Dormition, is something in which all of creation shares. For the point of the Incarnation was not simply to take flesh of the Virgin, but to be united with the whole created order. And so creation itself “groans and travails” as it awaits the final completion of our salvation (Romans 8). Or as the Church sings:
All of creation rejoices in Thee, O Full of Grace,
the assembly of angels and the race of men.
O sanctified temple and spiritual paradise,
the glory of virgins,
from whom God was incarnate and became a child.
Our God before the ages,
He made thy body into a throne,
and thy womb He made more spacious than the Heavens.
All of creation rejoices in thee,
O Full of Grace, glory to thee!
Her Dormition is indeed a day the earth stood still – for the Mother of us all passes from death to life.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Stop right there.
$#@! your Royal Families. Israel was NEVER supposed to have a King. It was WRONG.
The people wanted a King to be like the Pagans. God allowed it, but gave a warning. It was a curse that the people invited on themselves.
They got a King because they rejected God. "Royal Families" are still a curse to this day.
Last edited by pcosmar; 08-20-2014 at 01:14 PM.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
So King David was a curse to Israel? How about King Solomon? From my understanding, his was a time of great peace and when the Temple was constructed. Perhaps God should have waited for a libertarian society to accomplish this? And I always thought these kings of Israel were anointed, some by the hands of great and holy prophets!
Your hatred for monarchy blinds you from basic facts, to the extreme where you will deny the existence of queens in the history of Israel.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Had the error of a King,, (the error of Nimrod) not infected the people there would have been no King.
And David could have still been a servant of the Most High,, As a Judge or Prophet raised up by God,, just as the Judges were in time of need.
As could have Solomon,, Even without the adultery and murder,, As he could have still been born another way,,
God works with what we are..
I constantly question the different forks in my road,, that bring me to where I am today. Many choices would have led to different paths.
Some of them, I would have liked to avoid.
A King was a curse. The Human Government of a King. was a rejection of a Government by God.
Thus sayeth the Lord.But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. "Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-- in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods-- so they are doing to you also.…
Like all the Nations.. What were all those nations? Pagans.?. Followers of Nimrod.?That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
Was not supposed to be. Is not good now.
Last edited by pcosmar; 08-20-2014 at 01:13 PM.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
At the beauty,,, of thy virginity,,, and at the exceeding splendor,,, of thy purity,,,
Gabriel stood amazed,,, and cried out unto thee,,, "Oh Theotokos
What hymn of praise,,, is meet for me to bring to thee,,,
what shall I call thee,,, I hesitate and stand in wonder.
Wherefore,,, as I was commanded,,, I cry out unto to thee,,,
HAIL!!!,,, Oh thou who are full of grace!!!"
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Let's take a look at where the words "queen of heaven are mentioned in the Bible. Jeremiah 44:18King James Version (KJV)
18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
This is referring to a pagan Babylonian goddess. Throughout the history of the Bible the devil/satan has always mocked God and used evil to confuse mankind. Why do you think that the pagan worshipers have so many mother and child dieties? You can find these mother with child deities in many pagan religions today. They exist for the express purpose to confuse mankind seeking to destroy the genuine and real Mother and child deity in Mary and the baby Jesus. Mary and Jesus have been mocked and copied by satan for a reason in all of these other religions. Just as for the same reason satan will call his Babylonian pagan goddess the queen of heaven instead of Mary, attempting to strip her and Jesus and of their true natures. We know that Mary is the Mother of Jesus who bore God in her womb. satan wants to discredit the birth of Christ and to destroy the witness of Mary's faith--hence the devil has created his own version of the "queen of heaven" and his own version of the child giving then his version of the mother of child the title of goddess and power over the child. This is what satan does to confuse mankind.
So do you still believe that the Orthodox Catholics who use Mary to intercede for them are that far off while they recognize that Jesus is their Lord and savior and Mary His mother? Do you think that they're worshiping Ishtar, Isis or Semiramis when they acknowledge Mary the Mother of Jesus? No, they are not and they are fully respectful of the fact that they are not worshiping Mary, but rather Jesus through her. Do you think that God knows their hearts as they worship Jesus through Mary?
Do you worship the pagan phallic goddess Semiramis when you celebrate Christmas with the evergreen tree adorned with ornaments that is used in pagan worship to symbolize the rebirth? Do you worship the pagan goddess when you hang a wreath on your front door that also symbolizes the pagan phallic celebration of rebirth?
satan has placed these stumbling blocks in the paths of humanity to confuse them. People celebrate pagan holidays without even knowing they're doing so. Does that make them guilty of pagan worship even though these are ignorant innocent Christians who simply like to decorate? Does this make them guilty of pagan phallic worship? No--because everything that God sees is our intentions behind the things we do and why we do them. Only God can look upon our hearts and know what we do and why we do it. This is also why St. Paul said--"God is able to make them stand knowing their hearts".
So if a Christian understands that Jesus is his or her Lord and savior and that Mary was His earthly Mother who gave birth to God in the flesh and respects her as that--does that make them a pagan phallic worshiper? No--it does not.
satan works at attempting to rob God and His children of their titles and roles with regard to the salvation of humanity. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. satan made his own queen of heaven--Christians have given that title to the only one worthy to carry the title as John in revelation uses a metaphor to describe the virgin birth as it relates to the spiritual church and depicts the Mother of the Child with a crown of twelve stars arrayed with the sun as indeed--*royalty*. And for that matter--we who believe in the Son of God as our Lord and savior are *ALL royalty in that same light. So it's not out of bounds to call the Mother of Jesus Queen of Heaven as St. John depicted in the book of Revelation.
Last edited by Terry1; 08-21-2014 at 08:12 AM.
I also wanted to add that we will not all have the same ranks in the Kingdom of heaven. Our Lord tells us that those of greater faith will receive higher rewards in heaven and be given more power and authority, just as God has higher and lower angels--it's the same with those who have revealed greater levels of faith in this life--we will be rewarded for that in our heavenly perfected bodies the same.
Mary certainly deserves the title of Queen of Heaven given who she was on earth and her level of faith having gave birth to and being a virgin to the Son of God and God Himself. St. John seemed to believe so also in his divine royal depiction of her in Revelation.
Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
So although Mary is being used as a type and shadow and symbol to describe the spiritual church of God--she is being described as royalty. So just what is St. John doing here? Is he worshiping Mary or what she stands for through her faith? It was the faith and work of Mary that brought our savior into this world. She is representative of the very church itself in this scripture.
Last edited by Terry1; 08-21-2014 at 08:53 AM.
First of all, how do you know that?
Second of all, 64-70 AD is pretty early.
Third of all, why do you only mention the first Gospel, when we know that multiple books of the New Testament were written in the 40's and 50's AD?
Throughout the world, and throughout history, lots of Christians have said lots of things, many of them contradicting one another. If we want to evaluate all those claims to figure out which ones represent the apostolic faith, then we have to do that using a historical method, checking them against the earliest and best representations we have of that apostolic faith. And those are the books of the New Testament.
Spoken, yes. But Christians didn't use or approve of the use of icons until many decades or even centuries later than that.
If you believe this, then why would you accept the view that the earliest Gospel is from AD 64-70, rather than accept the traditions of the Church that say otherwise?
Last edited by erowe1; 08-21-2014 at 09:06 AM.
Excellent posts above Terry. You hit the nail on the head!
I wanted to repeat this small part because I sometimes get the feeling that Christians (especially Westernized Christians who have been brought up in a society that 'preaches' egalitarianism) do not realize this or are forgetful. Getting into Heaven of course would be good enough but there certainly is different ranks of glory to those who will enter within. Who would be more so than the mother of our very Savior who has perfect obedience and love for Christ?
Last edited by TER; 08-21-2014 at 09:15 AM.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Unfortunately, some people don't understand what the role of the Gospels were, which was completely Christocentric in purpose. It was developed to be sufficient to express Who Christ is but never intended to include and present all the depths of the mysteries of the faith. Even if it wanted to, it couldn't. So those who hand everything in their faith and limit it to the pages of the Gospels will indeed miss out on certain aspects and truths which may not have been written down implicitly in the book but rather is known within the life of the Church through the hymns, iconography, sacraments and oral teachings and traditions. This is why St. Paul in the NT clearly states to hold on to the traditions from both the written and oral teachings because one alone is not enough to deliver the fullness of the faith.Throughout the world, and throughout history, lots of Christians have said lots of things, many of them contradicting one another. If we want to evaluate all those claims to figure out which ones represent the apostolic faith, then we have to do that using a historical method, checking them against the earliest and best representations we have of that apostolic faith. And those are the books of the New Testament.
Last edited by TER; 08-21-2014 at 09:17 AM.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
But when individual human beings present some teaching which they claim to be a tradition passed down to them through the generations from the apostles, we can test that claim and see if it's true. Their belonging to some organization doesn't make it so.
For example, it's easy to prove that many views later Christians had about Mary, such as what happened to her body, were not passed down to them through the generations from the apostles, but arose later on through the speculations of human beings lacking any real knowledge of the subject.
Last edited by erowe1; 08-21-2014 at 09:21 AM.
Exactly TER! We are told to hold fast to our *Christian traditions*. The traditions that St. Paul condemned were those of the Jews who refused to accept Jesus and who practiced them to obtain righteousness through their traditions instead of Jesus. Those are the traditions that St. Paul called "dead works" and absent *Faith/Jesus.
Yes, and St. John in Revelation is definitely telling us that Mary and what she stands for is representative of the very body of Christ's believers themselves. Her spiritual womb is blessed being that which embodies and gives birth to the body of Christ. Just as she did in the flesh on this earth to our savior--St. John depicts Mary representative of giving birth to the very spiritual body of Christs church.
Last edited by Terry1; 08-21-2014 at 09:30 AM.
For many things regarding the Christian faith this is true, but not for all things, not even with regards with Who Christ is. For example, much of orthodox Christology is based on what is taught and written in the NT, but not everything is so black and white. That is why there have been so many heresies and schisms!
Much is known through the living experience of the Church as it has contended in the world and witnessed to it. For example, there has been one deposit of faith handed down, but it's expression of it may have needed greater clarity at times because of threatening schism. So this is why you get centuries later the Monophysite controversy or any other of the numerous heresies. It has been the Church expressing better what it has always known and experienced but for one reason or another did not have reason as of yet to fully proclaim or express. This is especially true for a persecuted Church which lived underground for the first many generations.
Indeed, the Arians used the same books as did the orthodox Christians and composed their theology pointing to 'proofs' within the Scriptures. The reason why they are regarded as Arians now is because following the arch heretic Arius and not the catholic Church, they have excluded themselves from the Church and the unity of faith, mind, and spirit. The outward sign which is also an ontological reality is found in their excommunication from the Eucharist which is what has always binded the Church through the different ages and controversies.Their belonging to some organization doesn't make it so.
We have a different understanding of the Church which makes it difficult for us to understand one another. The organization which has held sacramentally to the Apostles does indeed grant it merit and authority mystically by the power of the Holy Spirit, for it is the Holy Spirit of Truth within the Church which gives it the title of the pillar and foundation for truth.
This is your opinion based upon the lack of written testimony in the first centuries regarding her Dormition. If one limits themselves to the earliest writings as the complete picture, then you are correct that there seems to be a time gap between the open celebration and remembrance in honor of the Theotokos from the books of the NT to the later centuries. This, as you would agree, does not mean there was no such honoring but that we do not see it in the limitd information we have now.For example, it's easy to prove that many views later Christians had about Mary, such as what happened to her body, were not passed down to them through the generations from the apostles, but arose later on through the speculations of human beings lacking any real knowledge of the subject.
But first we must understand that while the apostolic truths may have always been the same, the expressions have changed according to the conditions surrounding the Church. In the beginning, it was primarily to teach Christ crucified and risen from the dead during times when doing so was punishable. The early apostolic mission was fixed on these greater Christian truths. Later, when the persecutions ceased and other important aspects of the faith became more easily and widespread discussed and debated was the Church forced to more clearly express what was handed down within the life of the Church even when it was not discussed as much earlier. Thus in the fifth century we get the Christotokos and Theotokos debate which is really a Christological debate. And to confirm and express what the Church believes, we then begin to see the writings of the men in those days reflect that.
But how can the Church make such claims on this topic without the written evidence which so many desire? The answer is by the Holy Spirit which guides the Church, which is not limited to humankind's ability to transmit information in written or oral modes. This may not seem like a good enough answer or proof for a logical and doubting mind however God does not work within the boundaries of human logic but through divine revelation and faith. To the extreme where it can be said that the dormition of the Theotokos was once well known within the Church at the time of it happening and then completely forgotten and then remembered by the providence of God through the Holy Spirit. This is NOT the answer the Church gives on this subject, for the answer of the Church is that it has always been known even as it was not found in the limited writings of the early Church or celebrated in the way it was later. My point is to say that even in the extreme case where it occurred and was lost in time does not necessarily negate its veracity, even as it makes it seem much less likely to the human mind. That is because the Church does contend and express truths on its own, but through the mystery and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Last edited by TER; 08-21-2014 at 10:17 AM.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Not just what isn't written, but also what is written. If your belief were passed down from the apostles through the generations, then it would have been impossible for Epiphanius to say what he did as late as AD 400, for example.
When other people who came much later than Epiphanius give their beliefs about what happened to Mary, we have recourse to historical sources to test how ancient their beliefs are.For one option is that the holy virgin died, and was buried, her sleep in honor, her end in chastity and crowned in her virginity. Or perhaps she was killed, just as it is written, and a sword will pierce through her soul, her credit into the martyrs, her body holy in blessedness, through which light entered the world. Or she remained. For is it not possible for all things to be done by God, whatever He wishes? For no one knows her end.
I wonder, by the way, if there even exist any ancient sources, or even medieval sources, that claim that their view on the assumption of Mary was passed down to them by oral tradition from the apostles. There may be. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the belief that this is such a tradition is itself a very recent innovation.
Last edited by erowe1; 08-21-2014 at 10:16 AM.
But the truths of the Church do not hinge on one man's opinion or thoughts, so while Epiphanius could say this, he does not speak on behalf of all Christians everywhere in in all times.
Again, if you use Epiphanius writing as the more ancient source (which I agree is a good approach) it still does not give the definitive picture, for even he admits he does not know. So can we use the opinion of someone who doesn't know as proof that the dormition did not happen? No. All we can say is that Epiphanius, in his mind and his experience, does not know what happened. This neither affirms nor negates the dormition.When other people who came much later than Epiphanius give their beliefs about what happened to Mary, we have recourse to historical sources to test how ancient their beliefs are.
I first would admit that I chuckled when you said 'very recent innovation' for something expressed in the 5th century. Much of what we understand about Who Christ was not fully explained and expressed until centuries after Christ rose from the dead, and this as a result of the schisms which threatened the Church when the Church was forced to speak up. The same is with regards to the Dormition. It was not until later, in God's good time and according to what the Church was contending against, that this feast would become mainstream within the Church, after having to contend for it against those who were teaching heretical teachings regarding Mary as simply Christotokos and not Theotokos.I wonder, by the way, if there even exist any ancient sources, or even medieval sources, that claim that their view on the assumption of Mary was passed down to them by oral tradition from the apostles. There may be. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the belief that this is such a tradition is itself a very recent innovation.
Last edited by TER; 08-21-2014 at 10:32 AM.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
This book is an excellent primer on the Virgin Mary and the Fathers of the Church:
Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
He doesn't need to. He provides us with evidence for what views existed in his time. If there had been a unified authoritative tradition about what happened to Mary's body passed down through the generations from the apostles, he could not have written these words.
You call it a truth of the Church. But the question is, is it really a truth of the Church? When an individual human being makes such a claim, we can test it by historical inquiry. In the case of the assumption of Mary, it doesn't pass the test. As you say, the truths of the Church don't hinge on one man's opinion.
I predict that if you read that book you will find that it confirms exactly what I just said about the assumption of Mary.This book is an excellent primer on the Virgin Mary and the Fathers of the Church:
Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought
I would add that the relics of the saints have been treasured by the Church from the very beginning, since the Holy Spirit was active within these relics during the life of the saint (and even afterwards through the miracles which God has worked through them as He did with Elisha's bones). We see that to this day have fragments of relics from the Apostles and Saints of the early Church.
How much more so would the relics of the very Mother of God been treasured!
Yet while we have to this day passed down through the Church various articles of clothing of the Virgin, such as her sash and belt, there are no relics and there has never been any speak of any relics. This may not be complete proof which some would like, but it is quite telling for those who are willing to believe.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
I have read it.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
And it does, doesn't it?
That is also clearly not true. The treasuring of relics from the people you refer to as saints began in the late second century. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on this too.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us