Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various areas of controversy and disagreement related to Marian theology, such as:
-too much honor vs not enough honor
-why venerate the Virgin
-her role in salvation
-the difference between venerating and worshipping her
-The Immacualte Conception, the Assumption, The Vigin Birth, Ever-Virginity

As a convert to Orthodoxy, I'm struggling to incorporate her into my spirituality (struggling may be too strong a word; it would be more of a struggle to go back to ignoring her at this point). Every thread that mentions her seems to develop interesting tangents around one of the above, so I thought I'd start one specifically for them all. All Marian tangents welcome! So, discuss your take on the Theotokos. What do you believe and why? Do you even care? What do you object to about other people's positions?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:


I would like to know why anyone believes in the everlasting virginity of Mary as it sounds like complete nonsense to me.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:


I would like to know why anyone believes in the everlasting virginity of Mary as it sounds like complete nonsense to me.

---

and that belief does not require faith in a miracle of any kind...

Best,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

---

We don't drink lemonade out of the chalice, not because there's anything wrong with lemonade, but because the chalice contained the Body and Blood of our Lord. Likewise, Mary's womb contained the Body and Blood of our Lord, and therefore it wasn't fitting that it should ever be used to hold any other child.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:


Eh?

C

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

---

We don't drink lemonade out of the chalice, not because there's anything wrong with lemonade, but because the chalice contained the Body and Blood of our Lord. Likewise, Mary's womb contained the Body and Blood of our Lord, and therefore it wasn't fitting that it should ever be used to hold any other child.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
I'm trying hard to get over my protestant Maryphobia, however - I came across a prayer the other day (I can't find it again now ) - which really made me wince. The gist of it was "Dear Mary, please pray for me - I'm asking you since Jesus is much more able to hear you than me".

Is this:
a) total nonsense
b) borderline nonsense from an overexcitable Mariolatrous catholic
c) an infelicitous expression of theology which might sound quite reasonable explained by a sensible catholic
d) true

What do you think?

---

I imagine that this is between a and b, but despite what the theologians officially say, I have heard this point of view from folks who have gone through Catholic parochial school. And this is why a lot of Prots have trouble with the intercession of saints. The idea that saints have more "pull" with God than the rest of his children, that you wouldn't get as much of a hearing asking God yourself as getting a saint or the BVM to do it for you.

An egregious example: asking a saint to ask Mary to ask her Son...

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
By this argument, comparing Mary's womb to an inanimate object, every chair Jesus sat in should never have been sat in by another person afterward.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
I was trying to give the short version. Here's a slightly longer version.

---

quote:

---

So why did Christians after the Reformation feel a need to dump this particular teaching?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
And IIRC it was accepted, not just in the very early Church, not just until the Great Schism, but all the way up through the Reformation. So why did Christians after the Reformation feel a need to dump this particular teaching?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various areas of controversy and disagreement related to Marian theology, such as:
-too much honor vs not enough honor
-why venerate the Virgin
-her role in salvation
-the difference between venerating and worshipping her
-The Immacualte Conception, the Assumption, The Vigin Birth, Ever-Virginity

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Mary Sue is any original character who possesses unusual qualities, parentage, or appearance — particularly in, but not limited to, science fiction or fantasy, (whether original or fan fiction).

---

quote:

---

"Sueification" is a name that has been applied to the transformation of a canon character to fit the writer's preferences. The character is likely to lose the traits the writer finds uninteresting or unappealing, and to gain characteristics which the writer likes but which the character had previously not possessed and which are radically out of character.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't particularly venerate Mary, although maybe I ought to take more notice of her example than I do.

I would never pray to Mary and don't really understand why people feel the need to, given that we are all supposed to have God living inside us (so, one would think, you can hardly get any closer to God if you tried). Also I do not accept this idea that there are people in heaven watching and shouting us on. I think we will all arrive at the same time.

I don't think she had any role in salvation any more than my mother has a role in me passing exams. Clearly mothers influence who we are, but they have only partial responsibility for the people we turn out to be.

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception - Mary was as broken and sinful as the rest of us. I need no explanation for the absense of original sin in Christ as I do not believe in that theology.

So plainly, I am pretty much a common-or-garden Prot.

C

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
"Dear Mary, please pray for me - I'm asking you since Jesus is much more able to hear you than me".

Is this:
a) total nonsense
b) borderline nonsense from an overexcitable Mariolatrous catholic
c) an infelicitous expression of theology which might sound quite reasonable explained by a sensible catholic
d) true

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she had any role in salvation any more than my mother has a role in me passing exams. Clearly mothers influence who we are, but they have only partial responsibility for the people we turn out to be.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Alex:
[QB]
In order for Our Lord to be free of sin, the humanity side had to be free from original sin ie Immacualte Conception - you wouldn't make a cup of tea in a dirty cup (sin) or without rinsing out the dust from the 'clean' cup from the cupboard (original sin). ...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

I think that--ASIDE FROM WHOEVER MARY TRULY IS--that many people reach for her because they want the feminine aspect of God. I also think that some goddess attributes were layered onto Mary--the mother aspect of Diana (remember, it was the Council of Ephesus--"great is Diana of the Ephesians"--who declared Mary to be the Mother of God), and the Star of the Sea office (held by several goddesses), etc.

---

to this, GK.

Theologically, I am about as common-or-garden-variety Prot as Cheesy is, and agree with most of what's in Cheesy's post. I am a bit fascinated with Mariolatry and Marian devotion, though, especially after reading Beverly Donofrio's Looking for Mary and Diane Schomperlein's Our Lady of the Lost and Found within the last year.

I think for me, really, there are two Marys. One is the Mary of the New Testament, a good and admirable woman, certainly feisty as mentioned above, and faithful though by no means perfect. I think every Christian, Catholic and Protestant, should admire and learn from her. She played a very special role in salvation history and she deserves to be honoured for it. FWIW, I think this Mary -- the "historical Mary" if you will -- is asleep in death, awaiting the resurrection as are all the righteous dead.

The other Mary is the Mary of church tradition, the Mary of Marian devotion, and I agree with Golden Key that this Mary is actually a representation of the feminine aspect of God. People venerate/worship/pray to Mary because they need a Mother God, and the Church has traditionally denied that God has feminine qualities but has provided this sort of side-channel for this much-needed worship. While I think some Christians are technically wrong to believe that a first-century Jewish woman is now a demi-goddess worthy of worship, I also believe that other Christians (my sort) are just as wrong to deny any outlet for our inborn need to turn to the loving arms of a heavenly Mother.

So, something to be learned on all sides there, and of course like everything else I believe, I take my belief in the Two Marys with a large grain of salt and a note that says, "I may be wrong about absolutely everything."

[ 06. December 2005, 00:28: Message edited by: TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) ]

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PerkyEars:
"Dear Mary, please pray for me - I'm asking you since Jesus is much more able to hear you than me".

Is this:
a) total nonsense
b) borderline nonsense from an overexcitable Mariolatrous catholic
c) an infelicitous expression of theology which might sound quite reasonable explained by a sensible catholic
d) true

---

It seems obviously true to me - provided 'hearing' prayers means more than just being aware of them. Obviously Jesus 'hears' all prayers (if Satan prayed, Jesus would know about it) but Jesus is better able to respond to prayer in a person obedient to him than one in rebellion. Mary is more obedient to God than I am. Jesus can respond to her prayers better than to mine, because she doesn't get in his way and I do.

The reason I don't pray to God through Mary is that I don't think Mary is more able to hear me that Jesus is. Everything in me that stops God doing his will in my life would still be there whether I pray to Mary or her Son.

I have no objection at all to other Christians who find that asking prayer of Mary helps them to be more open to God. It doesn't help me - it isn't my tradition and it would be a stumbling block for me rather than a help. I haven't, yet, felt any call to surmount that particular block, but far be it from me to place it in the path of others.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Can't speak for Cheesy*, of course, but Tradition would be good enough for me if I could see a point to her remaining a virgin.

---

We don't drink lemonade out of the chalice, not because there's anything wrong with lemonade, but because the chalice contained the Body and Blood of our Lord. Likewise, Mary's womb contained the Body and Blood of our Lord, and therefore it wasn't fitting that it should ever be used to hold any other child.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she had any role in salvation any more than my mother has a role in me passing exams. Clearly mothers influence who we are, but they have only partial responsibility for the people we turn out to be.

---

I can't agree that Mary had no role in salvation. If she had said no to the angel, and asked for a less hard and painful task (as she could have done), then Jesus would not have been born. Perhaps (we can plausibly believe, but cannot know) God would have found someone else, but even then, somebody had to make this act of extreme obedience, and to make themselves fit for it.

Do you feel you owe any gratitude to the person who first told you about Jesus and made him attractive to you? Maybe you could have learned the faith elsewhere, but the fact is, God reached you through one or more people who could have chosen to do otherwise. Your saving faith in Jesus was mediated through them. And it is just as true that your, and my, and every other Christian's faith has been brought to us through Mary.

---

quote:

---

First, from the very earliest times, Christians called Mary not just the Virgin, but the Ever-Virgin.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she was really in a position to say no to the angel, but that is a side issue really.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
I don't think she was really in a position to say no to the angel, but that is a side issue really.

---

I'm surprised at this idea. Do you think Moses had any choice in leading the exodus? Did Peter have a choice about following Christ? Do we have a choice in turning to Christ?

---

The impression given is that God choses the people he wants. The angel said 'you're going to have a baby...' rather than 'God says it'd be cool if you had a miraculous baby. What d'ya reakon?'

God says to Moses 'You will do x' and even when Moses objects he still has to do it.

However, as I am in no way a Calvinist, I'd suggest that there is a little more backstory involved. As God knows everyone intimately he is only going to call people to particular tasks who he knows are open and able to do the tasks.

I think salvation is a bit different because God says 'Oi you (plural) come to me' rather than 'Oi you (singular) come to me', although that doesn't explain why some individuals seem to get special treatment.

OK, I admit, my theology is duff.

C

--------------------
arse

Posted                      

quote:

---

I don't think Mary, the Saints, or priests are necessary to pray. Jesus said pray "Our Father" - you don't need an intermediary.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_ricarno:
The short answer is that the Reformers were firm believers in sola scriptura, so anything which you couldn't find in Scripture could not be considered as binding doctrine. I don't want to start a tangent about the validity of this doctrine (but maybe it's inevitable), but this is how Evangelical Protestants see it. If it ain't in Scripture, there's absolutely no obligation to believe it.

---

Making your answer slightly longer, I could mentioned that Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Anyone claiming to be a Calvinist today?

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
If Jesus needed a "washed cup" to be born from, then she also needed a washed cup to be born from -- or rather a cup and a teapot. Who also needed previous china.

---