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?

---

OK too many strings to pull in this ball of wool.

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

The only positive thing about it is that it gets out of Joseph having sexual relations with a 12 year old.

C

[ 05. December 2005, 16:48: Message edited by: Cheesy* ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'll give you this Cheesy ... you're irrepressible!
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
Cheesy, I'm guessing "Tradition" isn't going to cut it with you?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
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 by Bonaventura (# 1066) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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,

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:


Eh?

C

---

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.

---

This is a horrible analogy. She wasn't an inanimate object. She was a human being. The word "fitting" makes this out to be a point of decorum, which seems ridiculous. Jesus went all sorts of places in his life, and none of them became places no one else should go because he was had been there. 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 by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
St. Seb: I'm fine with Mary and Joseph not having sex, really I am, but to set it as doctrine and then to build so much around this doctrine just seems, well, odd I guess.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Sorry if this turns out o be a double post, but just saw josephine's, which is the only reasonable argument I find for the whole concept. But I still say, why not? Aside from the whole Real Presence issue, I don't think the Lord would inspire the Scriptures, give us a model for marriage and the family, and then have his own earthly family act in a manner very alien to that model.

Blessings,

Tom
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
Ruth:



Said so much better than I.

Blessings again, (see, I CAN type something else!)

Tom
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
I guess as your normal compromised LibCath heretic I'll make everybody unhappy ... the virginity of Mary always seemed to me to be a symbolic narrative - and a late one - that had tragically confused virginity and purity. I don't think it was about what she did with her pudenda any more than [groan : heretical libCath tangent follows:] the Miracle of the Feeding of Lotsa Hungry Bellies was about hungry bellies. [phew: heretical libCath tangent ends ]

I greatly admire, even venerate Mary. She is, at least in the Lukan narrative, a model of feisty obedience. We need her feist. I've never needed her virginity. After or before the encounter with Big Dove.

I say that as my perspective, not as an intended criticism of the perspectives of others.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

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...
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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

---

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 by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Well, being my usual eclectic self...

I've never had a problem with the virgin birth--maybe because I was raised on it from a very young age. But I don't seen any reason for her to have abstained from sex for the rest of her life. That seems to say that sex is bad and/or women are bad. Neither is true.

Making Mary untouchable also makes her unreachable for many people, especially women, especially little girls looking for a Biblical role model.

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.

Again, I'M NOT SPEAKING THERE ABOUT WHO MARY ACTUALLY IS, BUT SOME OF THE WAYS PEOPLE VIEW HER.


It's no secret that I'm pulled towards the feminine aspect of God. I do also sometimes pray to Mary, often on a basis of "God, if this is ok with you...Mary, if you're the best of who people have thought you are, then you understand where I'm coming from". And saying the "Hail Mary" can be comforting, even if I question some of the theology.

Frankly, since childhood, I've been more comfortable with Mary Magdalene. The Bible stories allow her to be human, and we're told a bit more about her than about any other NT woman except Jesus' mom. (And no, there's nothing in the Bible that says Mary Magdalene was a prostitute--though many women getting out of that work have found her a helpful example.)

I say that if your heart pulls you towards Mary or a particular saint, follow it. Prayer can be comforting, and we certainly need more comfort in this world. If you're not pulled towards any of them, that's ok, too.
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 

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

---

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

---

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.

---

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). ...

---

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) ]
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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
 

---

Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :
 
Another prot coming right up:

I believe in the Virgin birth (and this is an article of faith for me)

I don't believe in perpetual virginity (but this is irrelevant to my faith and I don't mind if I'm wrong)

I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception (and this is pretty close to an article of faith for me)

I don't believe in the Assumption (but not essential to my faith that it didn't happen)

I think that worshipping anything or anyone other than the Holy Trinity is idolatry, and that would include Mary. (Core belief)

I don't venerate Mary and the Saints in the Catholic sense.

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

Essentially most Marian doctrine was developed after she died, not by the original apostles, not in the Bible. So you will never persuade most Protestants about it. In many cases it is not that they believe it is demonstrably false, but that they don't believe something should be taught as doctrine if it is not in the Bible.
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
It seems worth mentioning some of the NT apocrypha that has influenced church thinking on Mary over the centuries. Some of the (particularly medieval) exaggerations about Mary have their origins in some these books (Pseudo Matthew springs to mind here). The latter book, among others, was embraced by much of the church and seems to have influenced the ideas about Jesus not having siblings and Mary herself having been born of a virgin birth.

K.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Posted by Jonathan the Free:

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.

---

That sounds like a very lonely faith. Tell me, would you say friends are "necessary" in order to have a full and happy life? And would you ever hesitate to ask your friends to pray for you?

Then why hesitate to ask your friends in the faith - the saints - to pray for you? It's not as if they can't, "For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
Can I add here something I spotted at a bible study last week?

When the angel visits Mary and tells her she is going to give birth to the Messiah, she accepts the task: She says, let it be to me as you have said, or something like, in a kind of, "OK, someone has to do this dirty job and if you want me, I will do it".

Then, when she goes to see Elizabeth, and Elizabeth says to her, "Oh this is fantastic you are so blessed to be the mother of the saviour etc", then Mary becomes thankful.

I was thinking how I often don't think to thank God for the most wonderful of things until some time after, but I'm always quick to complain .

This is just something that struck me at the time of reading, any thoughts?

[ 06. December 2005, 08:40: Message edited by: Evo1 ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

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 by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Is there any theological need for the Immaculate Conception - or is it simply Tradition? If it's just so that Jesus would have no original sin, then I agree with Janine:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Making your answer slightly longer, I could mentioned that Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
That sounds like a very lonely faith. Tell me, would you say friends are "necessary" in order to have a full and happy life? And would you ever hesitate to ask your friends to pray for you?

---

quote:

---

Then why hesitate to ask your friends in the faith - the saints - to pray for you? It's not as if they can't, "For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
I am a bit fascinated with Mariolatry...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
Answering for myself only, I can only reiterate what I said before that I don't believe any of the saints will get to heaven before any of the others.

---

quote:

---

I feel entirely uncomfortable with the idea that anyone thinks they need to be praying to a saint when they could have been spending the same time praying to God. Somehow that implies that praying to a saint is more useful than praying to God, which I reject entirely.

Asking someone on earth to pray seems to me to be an entirely different issue.

---

quote:

---

I could be completely wrong, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
I think for me, really, there are two Marys. ... <snip>... 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
I am a bit fascinated with Mariolatry...

---

Is this really necessary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AdamPater:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
I think for me, really, there are two Marys. ... <snip>... 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.

---

Can you apply the same train of thought to Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:


Asking someone on earth to pray seems to me to be an entirely different issue.

I could be completely wrong, of course.

C

---

quote:

---

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). ...


Ian 67 replied :-
I can't see any reason why this should be the case; if God can 'father' a child by the Spirit, we surely shouldn't expect the maternal side to be exactly the same as every other human birht. That last sentence is pretty stupid really - trying to confine God to the categories we easily understand never is a good idea!

---

1) If Christ is truly human and truly God, then yes his birth did have to be like ours and exactly the same on the maternal side
2) as for stupid sentence putting God things into easier terms, I do apologies, just trying to be helpful, a bit like using a parable perhps - I think Jesus use them!

Jannie wrote

quote:

---

Assuming one even believes in "original sin" as it is taught, then there would have had to be a line behind Mary of sinless people all the way back to Creation.

---

well no - as that is the whole point of the Immaculate Conception, a one off event so you didn't have to have the line going all the way back

As for Mary / goddes, I think some was has been reading far too much Mary Daly et co
Fr A

[ 06. December 2005, 11:10: Message edited by: Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Well since no one else has said anything further about the apocrypha and its influence on Marian doctrine, I thought I might chime in. In a nutshell, much of the extra-biblical thinking about Mary came from apocryphal writings. Once these books became discredited (Pseudo Matthew was found to be a forgery) the doctrine was already in place; and in the case of the RC church is very difficult to undo – though not impossible, as we have just seen recently with Limbo.

Several verses from PM contributed heavily to medieval Marian doctrine because, at the time, the church (well, the Pope at least) believed the book to be genuine. One example: 'It has never been heard or thought of, that any one should have her breasts full of milk, and that the birth of a son should show his mother to be a virgin. But there has been no spilling of blood in his birth, no pain in bringing him forth. A virgin has conceived, a virgin has brought forth, and a virgin she remains.'

After PM was revealed as a fake, it was of course removed from canonical scripture (though some others remained). However, the doctrine that it inspired remained unchanged. After this time apologists tried to find evidence for the same or similar arguments for Mary to be made from the Bible, with mixed results.

This is not the only example of traditions from the apocrypha remaining in Church doctrine and not all are as serious. The Nativity story about the presence of the animal kingdom at the Divine Birth also comes from PM, not the Bible; though, for me anyway, it is a little less troubling.

K.
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
After PM was revealed as a fake, it was of course removed from canonical scripture (though some others remained).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Alex:
well no - as that is the whole point of the Immaculate Conception, a one off event so you didn't have to have the line going all the way back

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Assuming one even believes in "original sin" as it is taught, then there would have had to be a line behind Mary of sinless people all the way back to Creation.

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Original sin is passed down through the male.

Eve was the first to yield to temptation, but it was Adam whose sin is counted against us, not Eve's. Through one MAN sin entered the world, not through the woman.

Therefore we have the indispensable need for the virgin birth. The sinfulness of Mary is irrelevant therefore - she didn't need to be immaculate in order to keep Jesus free from the taint of sin. As long as he had no male parent, Jesus was fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Original sin is passed down through the male.

---

quote:

---

Eve was the first to yield to temptation, but it was Adam whose sin is counted against us, not Eve's. Through one MAN sin entered the world, not through the woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
To add to it, I can now see the further scriptural deviation in the Salve Regina where 'we' are described as the 'banished children of Eve', rather than of Adam. Curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To me, if she was 'full of grace', it would heavily imply that she has been given grace - which in turn would mean that she needed grace because of her sin.

If not, then the grace originates from her as being her own 'possession' which, of course, is a blasphemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Original sin is passed down through the male.

Eve was the first to yield to temptation, but it was Adam whose sin is counted against us, not Eve's. Through one MAN sin entered the world, not through the woman.

Therefore we have the indispensable need for the virgin birth. The sinfulness of Mary is irrelevant therefore - she didn't need to be immaculate in order to keep Jesus free from the taint of sin. As long as he had no male parent, Jesus was fine.

---

Good grief. Do you have any scriptural or other evidence for this? This is a staggering piece of theology. I had no idea sin was sexist. Is the idea that 'in Christ...there is no male or female' a sign that God overcomes this?

T.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
To add to it, I can now see the further scriptural deviation in the Salve Regina where 'we' are described as the 'banished children of Eve', rather than of Adam. Curious.

---

What's curious is why you think this is a scriptural deviation. Unless you actually think that we're descendants of someone other than Eve.

Were you being serious?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To me, if she was 'full of grace', it would heavily imply that she has been given grace - which in turn would mean that she needed grace because of her sin.

If not, then the grace originates from her as being her own 'possession' which, of course, is a blasphemy.

---

Nonsense again. Do you actually think the Catholic Church hasn't considered this? She was filled with grace at her conception, to free her from original sin with which she would otherwise have been tainted.

Keep going Mudfrog, at the present rate of progress you'll have me believing the IC doctrine by the end of the week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But where exactly does Scripture tell us she was 'full of grace'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you):
I am a bit fascinated with Mariolatry...

---

Is this really necessary?

---

What do you mean? Are you disputing the use of the term "Mariolatry"? If so, I'll retract it, although in reading up on some of the more extreme excesses of Marian devotion it does seem that there are some people who actually WORSHIP her. But if the term is offensive I apologize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But where exactly does Scripture tell us she was 'full of grace'?

---

Since you seem to have dropped the line of argument, do you withdraw your accusation of blasphemy?

I don't believe Scripture does tell us that directly. It's a direct deduction that anyone free from original sin is full of grace though, wouldn't you say? Scripture would appear to inconclusive at a superficial reading.

---

I haven't dropped any line of argument.

I say that, in accordance with the words of the angel, Mary was highly favoured, but that this greeting does not convey any special graces upon her. Lots of people in Scripture found favour with God.

I find nothing whatever in the Bible to justify the words 'full of grace' - except of course in regard to our Lord who was 'full of grace and truth'.

I find nothing in Scripture or Biblical theology that says that Mary needed to be immaculate in order to bear Christ in her womb - indeed, for Jesus to be free from the guilt of Adam, the virgin birth was entirely sufficient.

As to the charge of blasphemy; it would only be a blasphemy if people were implying that the (non-Scriptural) phrase 'full of grace' meant that Mary possessed fullness of grace naturally instead of having it conferred on her at her obedient compliance to the will of God. Which, seeing that it is not a scriptural phrase, is an irrelevant argument.

We of course know that grace is bestowed upon sinners. If ary was given grace, then it was redeeming grace given to pardon her of sin.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
I don't agree that sin is only passed through the male.

I am not sure whether Eve sinned or not. We know that God commanded Adam before Eve had been formed (from Adam - in this way, Eve is as much from Adam as we are).

So, if Eve did sin, Adam was responsible for it either by virtue of the fact that it was him that God had commanded, or because Eve came from Adam.

The poor man couldn't win - I know the feeling well
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
...clouded by concupiscence...

---

I'm sorry, but nobody pointed this out.

That's just golden. I don't even know what that word means, but man is it smart!

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Paul then tells us:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man....for if by the trespass of the one man death reigned through that one man.... for just as through the disobedience of te one man the many were made sinners... (All from Romans 6)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I say that, in accordance with the words of the angel, Mary was highly favoured, but that this greeting does not convey any special graces upon her.

---

quote:

---

I find nothing whatever in the Bible to justify the words 'full of grace' - except of course in regard to our Lord who was 'full of grace and truth'.

---

quote:

---

I find nothing in Scripture or Biblical theology that says that Mary needed to be immaculate in order to bear Christ in her womb - indeed, for Jesus to be free from the guilt of Adam, the virgin birth was entirely sufficient.

---

quote:

---

As to the charge of blasphemy; it would only be a blasphemy if people were implying that the (non-Scriptural) phrase 'full of grace' meant that Mary possessed fullness of grace naturally instead of having it conferred on her

---

quote:

---

at her obedient compliance to the will of God.

---

quote:

---

We of course know that grace is bestowed upon sinners. If Mary was given grace, then it was redeeming grace given to pardon her of sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Paul then tells us:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man....for if by the trespass of the one man death reigned through that one man.... for just as through the disobedience of te one man the many were made sinners... (All from Romans 6)

---

I can't find the phrase 'one man' in Romans 6, whether in KJV, NIV, or Darby's translation, or indeed anything that looks much like what you quote. However, doesn't Greek (in which Paul wrote) observe two words for 'man'? Latin does. 'Vir' means 'man as opposed to woman', and 'homo' means 'man as opposed to beast or spirit'. My impression was that the Greek 'anthropos' was equivalent to 'homo'. If we really read ever occurence of the English word 'man' to mean 'male adult', then the character of large portions of scripture changes. How can Christ then be the Son of Man (a phrase which I know uses 'anthropos') if he is solely of woman?

T.

---

Whoops! Romans chapter 5

As far as the meaning of 'man' one just looks at the context: Adam is mentioned alongside such phrases as 'the one man' - it's a definiate article referring to one particular man.


Evo, Eve sinned first, but the guilt that taints us all was Adam's. The reason for the virgin birth - this is elemantary - is to prevent adam's guilt passing on to Jesus. Otherwise there is no theological reason for the VB.
 

---

Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Evo, Eve sinned first, but the guilt that taints us all was Adam's. The reason for the virgin birth - this is elemantary - is to prevent adam's guilt passing on to Jesus. Otherwise there is no theological reason for the VB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I say that, in accordance with the words of the angel, Mary was highly favoured, but that this greeting does not convey any special graces upon her. Lots of people in Scripture found favour with God.

I find nothing whatever in the Bible to justify the words 'full of grace' - except of course in regard to our Lord who was 'full of grace and truth'.

I find nothing in Scripture or Biblical theology that says that Mary needed to be immaculate in order to bear Christ in her womb - indeed, for Jesus to be free from the guilt of Adam, the virgin birth was entirely sufficient.

As to the charge of blasphemy; it would only be a blasphemy if people were implying that the (non-Scriptural) phrase 'full of grace' meant that Mary possessed fullness of grace naturally instead of having it conferred on her at her obedient compliance to the will of God. Which, seeing that it is not a scriptural phrase, is an irrelevant argument.

We of course know that grace is bestowed upon sinners. If ary was given grace, then it was redeeming grace given to pardon her of sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The reason for the virgin birth - this is elemantary ...

---

Does your sexism know no bounds?!

[ 06. December 2005, 13:08: Message edited by: professorkirke ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Greyface, why haven't you responded to the answer provided for the 'full of grace' question? That it is derived directly from a forged document, yet never recinded by the RC church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I say that, in accordance with the words of the angel, Mary was highly favoured, but that this greeting does not convey any special graces upon her. Lots of people in Scripture found favour with God.

I find nothing whatever in the Bible to justify the words 'full of grace' - except of course in regard to our Lord who was 'full of grace and truth'.

I find nothing in Scripture or Biblical theology that says that Mary needed to be immaculate in order to bear Christ in her womb - indeed, for Jesus to be free from the guilt of Adam, the virgin birth was entirely sufficient.

As to the charge of blasphemy; it would only be a blasphemy if people were implying that the (non-Scriptural) phrase 'full of grace' meant that Mary possessed fullness of grace naturally instead of having it conferred on her at her obedient compliance to the will of God. Which, seeing that it is not a scriptural phrase, is an irrelevant argument.

We of course know that grace is bestowed upon sinners. If ary was given grace, then it was redeeming grace given to pardon her of sin.

---

I think you have a very narrow definition of grace that you are using, and then applying it as an argument--unfairly, I would say--against another tradition. Look here. It means beauty and charm, it means fitness, it can mean a temporary immunity or exemption (which would not prenecessitate sin), and most notably, it can mean to "honor or favor," which even you haven't denied of Mary. In that respect, yes many people have been favored. But no one ever says, "Hail Mary, full of grace, and no one else has ever been full of grace either!" Perhaps they aren't hailing Mary BECAUSE she is full of grace, but rather hailing Mary, who happens to be full of grace.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No one has yet said where this phrase comes from 'FULL of GRACE.
And what, in the context of Mary's role and being, does full of grace mean? Is it redeeming grace or is it grace that she bestows because it's within her nature?

I do not see that grace in the sense you have suggested - beauty, charm - 'winsomeness' perhaps - is what the Ave Maria is on about actually. 'Hail Mary, really nice person, the Lord is with thee...? No, I sense that in that prayer, something more is meant; I suspect Full of Grace is a unique status given to Mary - unwarranted and unscriptural.

Highly favoured - yes.
A wonderful young woman - yes.
An example of faith and obedience - yes.

But sinless, immaculate, ever-virgin? Sorry, I can't see that it's logical, justifiable or necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is it redeeming grace or is it grace that she bestows because it's within her nature?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Question: How are you using the word, "forgery," Komensky?

-Digory [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
So when extrabiblical sources are given equality with scripture – or even give precendence over it – much caution is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Romans chapter 5

As far as the meaning of 'man' one just looks at the context: Adam is mentioned alongside such phrases as 'the one man' - it's a definiate article referring to one particular man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Question: How are you using the word, "forgery," Komensky?

-Digory

---

Faked. It is not what it claims to be.

K. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Mary is addressed simply as the favoured one, the recipient of a privilege, the beneficiary of God's sovereign and unconditioned choice."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Question: How are you using the word, "forgery," Komensky?

-Digory

---

Faked. It is not what it claims to be.

K.

---

Does this affect your view of half of the Pauline letters which are most likely not written by Paul? Or even the Gospel of Matthew, which has been suggested to have not been written by the disciple Matthew?

It's very hard to prove this sort of thing, and even once we believe we have, it doesn't negate everything found in such books, obviously.

-Digory [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It sounds like the good Doctor's theological acuity was having a day off, Mudfrog. I'm not aware of any catholic teaching that Mary "possessed" grace "in her own right", and I'd be surprised and disturbed to hear of such a teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I did a search engine search on 'Hail Mary full of grace' and came up with a sermon from a priest that said Mary was full of grace from the moment of her conception. I also saw that this is the official teaching of the Church.

---

quote:

---

Mary has full of grace in her own being. The reason for all this is given that Mary had to be sinless from the moment of conception in order to be the Mother of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Yes, this is the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is only necessary if you accept the doctrine of Original Sin. If you don't, then the Immaculate Conception becomes irrelevant. As the RC church does accept original sin, then it makes perfect sense for it to also adopt the IC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Funny thing is, what with the usual evangelical line that God can't bear sin and can't possibly be in the presence of it (always makes me think of Superman and Kryptonite, but I digress), I'd have thought evangelicals would have been all for this sort of idea.

---

That's a great point I've never thought of. Very interesting indeed!
 

---

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Yes, this is the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is only necessary if you accept the doctrine of Original Sin. If you don't, then the Immaculate Conception becomes irrelevant. As the RC church does accept original sin, then it makes perfect sense for it to also adopt the IC.

---

I would dispute that this makes perfect sense. Like someone else pointed out earlier, if a miracle is possible at Mary's conception that would have made her free from the line of passed original sin, there doesn't seem to be a logical reason why this miracle could not have simply occurred at Jesus' birth instead.

---

quote:

---

I did a search engine search on 'Hail Mary full of grace' and came up with a sermon from a priest that said Mary was full of grace from the moment of her conception. I also saw that this is the official teaching of the Church. Mary has full of grace in her own being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception fits into this three part schema inasmuch as by divine grace our Lady's nature was healed allowing her to be born without original sin. However she still required divine grace to be saved as this is part of the nature of human beings. If you consider the words of the Ave Maria. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee". Do you not recognise the two sentences have any relationship to one another? Mary is full of grace. Why? Because the Lord is with her. It is God's grace, not Mary's. That is what grace in a theological context means. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
As has been shown here and in countless other places, the source materials used by the (RC) church to form its ideas about Mary were based on forged documents (such as the Ave Maria you quoted). Among other Mary-related prayers the sources are totally unreliable and in the case of the Ave Maria just a plain hoax. Don't get me wrong, I am not one who denies Mary's special place (I don't think she is, as I heard one preacher describe her, 'just another typical Jewish mother').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
To me, if she was 'full of grace', it would heavily imply that she has been given grace - which in turn would mean that she needed grace because of her sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace: You're a cessationist then? I ask because you seem to admit no possible source of doctrine outside the canon. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

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?

---

quote:

---

Besides, as David speaks in the name of the whole Church, whatever he says concerning himself behoved to be fulfilled in the supreme Head. It is, therefore, not surprising to find the Evangelists applying this passage to Christ, (John 2:17.)

---

quote:

---

8I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother's sons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Not necessarily. In this context I am arguing that if you are going to admit sources from outside the cannon as authentic then those sources ought to be tested. In the case of much of kerfuffle surrounding Mary, much of the source material has been shown to be unreliable or even forged. While I can imagine a situation where sources ouside the cannon could be very useful, I cannot imagine a situation where outright forgeries are celebrated. I'm sorry if I hadn't made that distinction clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
But this puts us back to GreyFace's question: will you only accept writings, forgery or not, if they are backed up in the canon? Or are you really willing to "test" them as you say, which involves the process of searching out whether or not they are clearly contradicted by the canon, by tradition, or by experience?

-Digory [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception fits into this three part schema inasmuch as by divine grace our Lady's nature was healed allowing her to be born without original sin. However she still required divine grace to be saved as this is part of the nature of human beings. If you consider the words of the Ave Maria. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee". Do you not recognise the two sentences have any relationship to one another? Mary is full of grace. Why? Because the Lord is with her. It is God's grace, not Mary's. That is what grace in a theological context means.

---

I don't think so. As has been shown here and in countless other places, the source materials used by the (RC) church to form its ideas about Mary were based on forged documents (such as the Ave Maria you quoted). Among other Mary-related prayers the sources are totally unreliable and in the case of the Ave Maria just a plain hoax.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyinred:
I'm intrigued by why people think that a sinless mother is necessary anyway?

Surely the point about the incarnation is that God himself comes down into his creation in the middle of all the mess and muck? That being in the express likeness of God, he did not think equality with God a thing to be grasped, but instead made himself nothing? Even if he had been born of a sinless mother, the depth of the Lord's descent from his position in glory is astonishing. To me the great beauty of the incarnation is in the humility of the Son, in his willingless to lay aside his home in glory <gets distracted by the lovely hymn>

Maybe there's a link to the caganer article on the front page at the mo? It strikes me that people are profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that a supremely holy God could wind up in the middle of all the mess and the reality of human existence, and not float around in an angel-protected holy-bubble. But that surely is the point?

Red x

---

I'm with you, girlfriend.

Frankly all these ruminations about sin coming through Adam only, about how many degrees of separation God needs to be away from normal humanity to incarnate gets me thinking how distant the ethereal, mythic Theotokos seems from the mom who argued with her son at the wedding in Cana or tried to entice him away from the synagogue where he was embarrassing the family. I'm reminded of the nit-picky discussions of a bunch of twelveth century scholastics.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception fits into this three part schema inasmuch as by divine grace our Lady's nature was healed allowing her to be born without original sin. However she still required divine grace to be saved as this is part of the nature of human beings. If you consider the words of the Ave Maria. "Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee". Do you not recognise the two sentences have any relationship to one another? Mary is full of grace. Why? Because the Lord is with her. It is God's grace, not Mary's. That is what grace in a theological context means.

---

I don't think so. As has been shown here and in countless other places, the source materials used by the (RC) church to form its ideas about Mary were based on forged documents (such as the Ave Maria you quoted). Among other Mary-related prayers the sources are totally unreliable and in the case of the Ave Maria just a plain hoax.

---

Er, what do you mean by forged documents? The first part of the Ave is straight out of the gospel greeting of the angel to her. The last bit 'Holy Mary, Mother of God, prayer for us sinners now and at the hour of our death' is just a request for prayers.

---

quote:

---

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From GB Caird (DD Oxon), one time principal of Mansfield College Oxford. (Grinfield lecturer in the Septuagint, Member of the Apocrypha Translation Panel of the NEB and an official Observer at the Second Vatican Council):

"The Latin Vulgate version of Gabriel's salutation to Mary - 'Hail Mary, full of grace' - has contributed to the veneration paid to Mary by her devotees, on the ground that she is able to dispense to others from the plenitude of grace which she in her own right possesses. The Greek, however, does not admit to any such interpretation. Mary is addressed simply as the favoured one, the recipient of a privilege, the beneficiary of God's sovereign and unconditioned choice."

---

quote:

---

Luke 1:27-28
27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

---

quote:

---

Luke 1:39-42
39And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

40And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
lol, it's all well to say the KJV is a lousy translation... but that was the only English translation available for a long time...

Apart from the 'full of grace', those verses match the English prayer word to word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Digory, thanks for this. Yes, what you are saying makes some sense. Part of PM is consistant with Biblical writing, so one might, therefore, at least consider the rest of its contents. However, it is the very fact that it is forged that raises (my) suspicions. Much of the Hitler Diaries made sense too, but once everyone knew they were fakes, the contents were forgotten, which is what should have happened to PM.

---

Whoa careful now. Mentioning Hitler around these parts can make you lose all credibility in a heartbeat!

Seriously, though, you are taking something with an obvious negative moral value (Hitler's diaries) which, upon the discovery of its falsehood, served no more purpose to anyone and comparing it with a mysterious extra-biblical apocryphal writing with no real moral value either way. Fine, throw out forgeries from WWII but let's not throw anything out from the first few centuries because we know so little from that time period! Anything, even forgeries, must be examined and tested.

To which you say:

quote:

---

As for the tests, you are probably on the right track; do they jibe with the rest of Christian experience, but I reject (at least in part) tradition. Because, in this case, the tradition is not based on sound source materials and some of the rest of it does not jibe with the rest of the NT. For what it is worth, PM is far from the wierdest book amongst apochrypha.

---

First, let me say that I do not like the word "jibe." It just sounds weird.

Second, you obviously accept the canon of scripture. On what basis? Which Protestant council was it that decided on the canon? How many council members do you think believed in Mary's ever virgin state? How do you reconcile this?

quote:

---

I am trying to be open minded about the idea non-canonical books, but I see no scriptural basis for doing so.

---

You must see the irony of this statement? Ten points if you can laugh at yourself a little for this one.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I would have thought that the Bible would take precedence over non-Biblical texts.

---

quote:

---

I think it is some of the more outrageous claims made for Mary that scare most Protestants. The situation is a real pity, because Mary is such a good example for us to follow. But say that in my church and you'll likely be show to the church across the road.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
From GB Caird (DD Oxon), one time principal of Mansfield College Oxford. (Grinfield lecturer in the Septuagint, Member of the Apocrypha Translation Panel of the NEB and an official Observer at the Second Vatican Council):

"The Latin Vulgate version of Gabriel's salutation to Mary - 'Hail Mary, full of grace' - has contributed to the veneration paid to Mary by her devotees, on the ground that she is able to dispense to others from the plenitude of grace which she in her own right possesses. The Greek, however, does not admit to any such interpretation. Mary is addressed simply as the favoured one, the recipient of a privilege, the beneficiary of God's sovereign and unconditioned choice."


That, written by a scholar, is roughly whjat I have been saying: that Mary's grace was a gift given, not a thing possessed by nature and certainly not bestowed on others. She is not sinless, but a sinner upon whom God's favour rested.

---

quote:

---

et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
The Latin word "gratia" gives us (via Old French) the English word grace. The semantic range of the Latin word is wide and can include favour, regard, friendship, kindness and service.

The word "plena" is where things get really interesting. In Latin it can mean full, filled, stout, plump, and copious. It gives us the English word plenitude. Applied to a woman, "plena" can also mean pregnant, i.e. a filled womb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

Which Protestant council was it that decided on the canon? How many council members do you think believed in Mary's ever virgin state? How do you reconcile this?

---

It was simply The Church (you must know this – are you goading me?) It doesn't matter how many members felt that she was, the point is that she wasn't forever a virgin, according to the Bible anyway. At this point I would like to draw attention that this assertion should not detract from Mary's special place ('generations shall call me blessed'). Father R. Cantalamessa points out that it was Mary who had her Pentecost first – she recieved the Holy Spirit (not for the first time in the BIble, OK, but it was still a special case) before the disciples.

quote:

---

I am trying to be open minded about the idea non-canonical books, but I see no scriptural basis for doing so.

---

You must see the irony of this statement? Ten points if you can laugh at yourself a little for this one.


Ten points for me!

quote:

---

Furthermore, I would have thought that the Bible would take precedence over non-Biblical texts.

---

Certainly, but how do you judge the things that the canon doesn't speak to? Anything not mentioned in the canon is false?

No, but things not in the Bible can be false.

quote:

---

I think it is some of the more outrageous claims made for Mary that scare most Protestants. The situation is a real pity, because Mary is such a good example for us to follow. But say that in my church and you'll likely be show to the church across the road.

---

Yes, sadly it's become quite the dividing issue, no? Perhaps your church and the church across the road would do well to come together for some unity building exercises? You seem like a great candidate to head that up, so why not go for it?

-Digory

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Most people are very excited by these things, but it is not without difficulties. Despite the divisions, I still think of The Church (how ever wide-eyed that may seem). There is a wall between the two churches, I have suggested that it is torn down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Mary was born immaculate - without sin - why did she own God as her Saviour (see the magificant)? And why did she go with Joseph to the Temple where she made 2 sacrifices - one, a sacrifice of a pigeon (because she couldn't afford a lamb) as a burnt offering, and another pigeon as a sin offering?
Luke 2 v 24

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Mary didn't need to be forgiven, because she didn't sin. But she needed grace in order not to sin.

---

quote:

---

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Mary didn't need to be forgiven, because she didn't sin. But she needed grace in order not to sin.

---

So Christ did not die for Mary then

Romans 5 v 8

quote:

---

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Mary didn't need to be forgiven, because she didn't sin. But she needed grace in order not to sin.

---

So Christ did not die for Mary then

Romans 5 v 8

quote:

---

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us

---

---

I didn't know Paul had addressed that letter to Mary or Mary's church or something. In fact, I'm pretty sure she'd been dead for a few years by the time he wrote Romans around 50.

Don't make the Christian mistake of assuming that just because something is in the Bible, you can pluck it out and use it to apply specifically to any old situation. Paul wrote this specifically to a specific group of people for a specific purpose. The fact that we now use it to compare it to ourselves, because we are similar to Paul's church friends, does not necessitate that everyone who ever lived need be.

All of that being said, I'm not even sure if people believe that Christ died for Mary or not.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus , for He will save His people from their sins."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Sorry I caused you offence in quoting from Romans.

Perhaps I should have used a more seasonal text instead and asked is Mary one of His people?

Matthew 1 v 21

quote:

---

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Sorry I caused you offence in quoting from Romans.

Perhaps I should have used a more seasonal text instead and asked is Mary one of His people?

Matthew 1 v 21

quote:

---

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

---

---

Honestly, Dobbo, you caused no offense in quoting Romans, just like you have now caused no offense in making the same mistake with Matthew.


Jesus saves any of his people who need saving. Whether or not Mary needed saving, I have no idea.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

If I have five children, and three of them are at a basketball game, and I say to my friend, "Well, I must go and pick up my children from the basketball game," do I mean that the other two are not my children?

---

The questions I am asking are a follow up question to Mudfrogs especially after Mousethief's response

To use your analogy

- so if your friend asked are you going to pick up all your children how would one respond.

It is going to a question of clarification that is all. Just as a solicitor would cross examine a witness, using different questions to try and get to the truth - but he would do it much better than I.
 

---

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
The idea is that Our Lady received the grace of baptism, the washing away of her sin, at her conception. Christ saved His mother before he was even born.

There's a book on the Franciscan tradition (in one of the series that has titles like "The Fransciscan Tradition", "The Byzantine Tradition", "The Carmelite Tradition" (are you getting the idea?) that has a section devoted to Duns Scotus' understanding of the Immaculate Conception, and it struck a lot of chords for me.

There's an article in the latest "Walsingham Review" by one of the brethren at Mirfield on the Immaculate Conception called "The Immaculate Conception: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it good news?" which is quite good. Mudfrog, I recommend that you read your copy! ( ) Or, perhaps, I could e-mail them and ask if I might post it on here?

Thurible
 

---

Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
The idea is that Our Lady received the grace of baptism, the washing away of her sin, at her conception. Christ saved His mother before he was even born.

There's a book on the Franciscan tradition (in one of the series that has titles like "The Fransciscan Tradition", "The Byzantine Tradition", "The Carmelite Tradition" (are you getting the idea?) that has a section devoted to Duns Scotus' understanding of the Immaculate Conception, and it struck a lot of chords for me.

There's an article in the latest "Walsingham Review" by one of the brethren at Mirfield on the Immaculate Conception called "The Immaculate Conception: Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it good news?" which is quite good. Mudfrog, I recommend that you read your copy! ( ) Or, perhaps, I could e-mail them and ask if I might post it on here?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

We declare, pronounce and define that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God,in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, and that this doctrine was revealed by God,and therefore must be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful

---

Ineffabilus Deus

I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me
 

---

Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
So why can't GOD just immaculately conceive as all?
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
So Christ did not die for Mary then?
Is Mary one of His people?

These are not glib questions - they approach the question of was Mary sinless from a different direction that is all. I think for that reason alone these questions are worthy of an answer by someone who believes Mary was sinless.

No one felt it was wrong of Mudfrog to ask the does Mary need a Saviour if she had no sin and how does that sit with Luke 1 v 47.

So what is so wrong with my question - all I am trying to do is explore the understanding from another perspective.

quote:

---

If I have five children, and three of them are at a basketball game, and I say to my friend, "Well, I must go and pick up my children from the basketball game," do I mean that the other two are not my children?

---

The questions I am asking are a follow up question to Mudfrogs especially after Mousethief's response

To use your analogy

- so if your friend asked are you going to pick up all your children how would one respond.

It is going to a question of clarification that is all. Just as a solicitor would cross examine a witness, using different questions to try and get to the truth - but he would do it much better than I.

---

First off--I've never been offended by you on this thread, Dobbo. I suppose I gave off some sort of bad signal as though I was mad or upset, but I assure you, I am not.

All I am arguing is that you are lifting a sentence out of text and using it to make a point that the text simply does not make. If a friend asked me if I'm going to pick up all of my children, I would answer accordingly. However, the text you quoted doesn't say this, it just says that Jesus will save his people.

So to answer your question, Mary is one of Jesus' people, yes IMO, by nature of her humanity. Feel free to cross-examine all you like, of course! But expect myself (and others) to point out faulty lines of reasoning and deductions. Consider it our "objections," if you will.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:
So why can't GOD just immaculately conceive as all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
What's curious is why you think this is a scriptural deviation. Unless you actually think that we're descendants of someone other than Eve.

---

Lilith?
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
Like someone else pointed out earlier, if a miracle is possible at Mary's conception that would have made her free from the line of passed original sin, there doesn't seem to be a logical reason why this miracle could not have simply occurred at Jesus' birth instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
...clouded by concupiscence...

---

I'm sorry, but nobody pointed this out.

That's just golden. I don't even know what that word means, but man is it smart!

-Digory

---

Are you impugning my sesquipedalian verbiage? Fie on you, sir, fie!

(If anyone's interested, the argument would have been that the Immaculate Conception is necessary to avoid a situation in Mary where "the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak", i.e. however much Mary intended to say "Yes", it wouldn't have been enough to overcome the reluctance of her Flesh™ if she hadn't been immaculately conceived. And yes, I'll admit there's all sorts of problems with this suggestion.)
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:
So why can't GOD just immaculately conceive as all?

---

Well, sanc, the quick answer to your question is, "He can."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me

---

And there, Dobbo, you put your finger on one of the central problems - this notion (bizarre to me) that every doctrine must have a textual foundation, whether the text is Biblical or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
The question I would ask is this. So if all this doctrine regarding Mary's immaculate conception is so important, why was it that this teaching was not recorded by the canonical authors, or even yet in the creeds?

And the simple answer has to be, because this teaching is unnecessary for salvation.

God did whatever was necessary for Jesus Christ to be the acceptable sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Consider also that on occasion Jesus was careful to distance himself from God, challenging one enquirer who addressed Him as 'good' to recognise that this character belongs to God alone. Mary is an important figure in the household of faith without doubt, and inspired by the spirit, prophesied truly. But this is no grounds for addressing prayer to her, any more than to Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Hannah, David, Elijah, John Baptist, or any other of our fellow humans whose example of true faith is acclaimed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:
So why can't GOD just immaculately conceive as all?

---

Well, sanc, the quick answer to your question is, "He can."

---

Quick follow-up: So why hasn't he?

---

Medium answers:

1) Because we don't want him to. Our pride is so strong that we would rather be given our sin because we are quite confident that we can overcome it ourselves. This was the purpose of the Law, and continues to be a driving force behind a lot of modern practices.

2) Because then earth would be just like heaven, and for some reason unknown, there is a purpose to earth that can only be acheived through the existence of suffering and sin.

(My REAL answer? I don't have a clue.)

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

I particulary wanted the verses in the Bible given that "this doctrine was revealed by God" but that is the sola scriptura in me

---

And there, Dobbo, you put your finger on one of the central problems - this notion (bizarre to me) that every doctrine must have a textual foundation, whether the text is Biblical or not.

Unfortunately doctrines don't always work like that. More often, I think, the supporting text comes later, after the lived experience of the Church has led to the formulation of ways of thinking of God, Mary, or whatever.

That seems to be why some of the apocryphal texts were written - to provide support for ideas that already existed. The Protevangelium of James, for example, seems (on my reading at least) to be exploring the implications that Jesus possessed the divine nature even in his childhood, which was something that some early heretics denied. The Gospel of Nicodemus, in the section on the harrowing of hell, is asserting that the sacrifice of the cross was effective even for those who had lived and died before Christ's life on earth.

It's arguable, of course, that some of the NT texts came about in the same way - it was what the Church already believed about the resurrection that led to the writing of the resurrection narratives. This idea that every idea is based on an earlier text is a very modern one, and neither pre-modern nor post-modern thinking works the same way.

---

Sorry I was not trying to draw anything on that one I understand totally that there is a difference between those that believe sola scriptura and those who accept tradition etc as well.

I would have been obliged if you had quoted me fully and included the I believe that puts it more in the perspective in how I intended it to come across ie I was being a bit of a devil perhaps? I was not looking for a scripture verse quite frankly because there is none.

As Groucho Marx would say

quote:

---

quote me as being misquoted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
The question I would ask is this. So if all this doctrine regarding Mary's immaculate conception is so important, why was it that this teaching was not recorded by the canonical authors, or even yet in the creeds?

And the simple answer has to be, because this teaching is unnecessary for salvation.

God did whatever was necessary for Jesus Christ to be the acceptable sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Consider also that on occasion Jesus was careful to distance himself from God, challenging one enquirer who addressed Him as 'good' to recognise that this character belongs to God alone. Mary is an important figure in the household of faith without doubt, and inspired by the spirit, prophesied truly. But this is no grounds for addressing prayer to her, any more than to Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Hannah, David, Elijah, John Baptist, or any other of our fellow humans whose example of true faith is acclaimed.

---

The "doctrine" of Personal Hygiene isn't necessary for salvation either. Does this mean you should STOP showering?

It may not be necessary, but that doesn't make a case for why it's wrong, untrue, or harmful.

-Digory

PS On a side note, WRT this popularly quoted passage about Jesus denying to be good--is this Jesus distancing himself from God by saying only God is good, or is it Jesus alerting the person to think about what he was saying--that if he was calling Jesus, "good," and only God was good, did he know what that meant?

[ETA the PS]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
Clearly I may stop showering without impeding whatever chance I may have of salvation. Likewise I need feel no compulsion to adopt superfluous doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind us all that Our Lady herself told S Bernadette in Lordes (1858) that she was 'The Immaculate Conception' Straight from the horse mouth, so to speak (no offence intended, Mary).
Do have a good feast tomorrow - I will remember you at Mass!
Fr A

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind us all that Our Lady herself told S Bernadette in Lordes (1858) that she was 'The Immaculate Conception' Straight from the horse mouth, so to speak (no offence intended, Mary).
Do have a good feast tomorrow - I will remember you at Mass!
Fr A

---

That does, of course, invite another debate altogether...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Alex:
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind us all that Our Lady herself told S Bernadette in Lordes (1858) that she was 'The Immaculate Conception' Straight from the horse mouth, so to speak (no offence intended, Mary).
Do have a good feast tomorrow - I will remember you at Mass!
Fr A

---

That does, of course, invite another debate altogether...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
[I don't consider visitations to be evidence of anything whatsoever.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
[I don't consider visitations to be evidence of anything whatsoever.

C

---

Surely at the very least they are evidence of delusion?

---

Thurible
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
I thought Mary's mother also had a special role in Catholic tradition ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.

---

There are non-RC parallels. I was taught that God doesn't hear any of your prayers until you pray to accept Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
As for the dangers attendant, here is an example. I was told by an RC schoolteacher that the prayers of protestants go unheard: Jesus will only hear those who pray to His mother. Now that was a few decades ago, and the RCC does seem to have done a little re-education in the ensuing time, but nonetheless such things were said, and presumably believed.

---

There are non-RC parallels. I was taught that God doesn't hear any of your prayers until you pray to accept Jesus.

---

But those of us with access to the bible can read Jesus' reported advice on the subject. Just one reason among many that I am so keen on reference to the generally accepted source text before entertaining discussion.

---

Right, but you have to go to the text to see what it says, and then discern what it means. It's not always clear right away, for any religion, and there are always people who are misrepresenting the truth, and whole churches who are teaching bad doctrine.

Lots of tough calls. On both sides.

-Digory
 

---

Posted by St. Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
Forgive me for jumping around the various points that have been discussed but I haven't been able to spend much time on the Ship this week, and the thread has gotten larger than my little mind can easily wrap around. Reading through the thread, though, these are the main thoughts that occur:

--re perpetual viriginity: I don't see the connection between that doctrine and a condemnation of sex or denigration of "average" women's bodies that some seem to.

--for what it's worth, I think that the Orthodox teaching is that Mary was sinless from the moment of Christ's conception, not her own. I wonder at what point RC and O doctrine diverged on that point (or am I wrong about the O doctrine?). She is called First of the Redeemed. At least in O teaching, one can become sinless in this life, or make some decent headway in that direction. That's what makes a great saint (though at least one, who died surrounded by the Uncreated Light, was heard to say on his deathbed, "I have not yet begun to repent.")

--The O doctrine is that Mary died and then was assumed bodily into Heaven. Does anyone know when RC doctrine changed to her never having died (okay, okay, I guess an RC would say our doctrine changed. Either way, when did it happen and why?).

--Someone said something along the lines of praying to Mary taking away time that could be used to pray directly to God. I confess that this has occurred to me as well and I struggle with it some (or maybe I'm struggling with time managment!). I generally include my prayers to Mary as part of my "private liturgy", when I"m doing my morning or evening prayers. I haven't gotten to the place yet that I spontaneously pray to her or the saints. It still feels a little like "cheating on" God.

--What do people think about the Marian Apparitions-both the major public ones and the private ones granted the saints. I now someone rejected them (Cheesy?), but why? Because such things can't happen, or because they don't jibe with your theology of Mary or some other reason? It occurs to me that you don't hear of Protestants having those experiences, and I wonder what that means.
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:

--What do people think about the Marian Apparitions-both the major public ones and the private ones granted the saints. I now someone rejected them (Cheesy?), but why? Because such things can't happen, or because they don't jibe with your theology of Mary or some other reason? It occurs to me that you don't hear of Protestants having those experiences, and I wonder what that means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
divine gold teeth,

---

quote:

---

by professorkirke
Medium answers:

1) Because we don't want him to. Our pride is so strong that we would rather be given our sin because we are quite confident that we can overcome it ourselves. This was the purpose of the Law, and continues to be a driving force behind a lot of modern practices.

---

quote:

---

by professorkirke
2) Because then earth would be just like heaven, and for some reason unknown, there is a purpose to earth that can only be acheived through the existence of suffering and sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:
In answer to why don't GOD just imacculately conceive us all professorkirke wrote:

quote:

---

by professorkirke
Medium answers:

1) Because we don't want him to. Our pride is so strong that we would rather be given our sin because we are quite confident that we can overcome it ourselves. This was the purpose of the Law, and continues to be a driving force behind a lot of modern practices.

---

So Mary in the womb let GOD? In the womb, we have no capacity to decide whether we don't or do want HIM to. If Mary was immaculately conceived which greatly aid why she led a sinless life, why can't GOD just dispense this formula for all of us to enjoy?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

by professorkirke
2) Because then earth would be just like heaven, and for some reason unknown, there is a purpose to earth that can only be acheived through the existence of suffering and sin.

---

Why not? heaven here would be nice. As if suffering and sin is a melting pot serving a greater purpose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Why not? heaven here would be nice. As if suffering and sin is a melting pot serving a greater purpose?

---

Hold on. You believe suffering has no purpose, and is simply outside of God's will and plan? That's interesting.

-Digory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
For starters, the Bible explicitly forbids communicating with the dead full stop (of course I realise that some people believe Mary never died, despite this is not in scripture; see below). This further brings into question the numerous Marian devotions mentioned here and elsewhere. Those of us who question Marian devotions are merely given the answer that the practice is ok because: 1. It is part of tradition. 2. It is not only mentioned, but it would seem also encouraged, in some of the apocrypha. From here we are forced to accept as legitimate, sources that have long been identified as fakes for the flimsy reason that since parts of them are in agreement with the Bible some other parts might also be true (the fact that those other parts do not concord with the Bible is not permitted in the discussion; we are only told to see point 1). This is how much propaganda works, it contains an element of truth and therefore many people will be prone to believing the rest of it without question. This is pretty basic stuff and I doubt it would trouble a student in a first-year logic course.

Those who are committed to Marian devotions are likely to have rejected the first sentence of the previous paragraph along the lines of ‘who says the Bible is the sole authority?’ and in this, they share much with the Mormons, among others. It is then a vicious circle; one cannot use the Bible to persuade another of some theological point, if that second person does not acknowledge the authority of the Bible – the latter simply insists on the importance of ‘tradition’. This is a similar line of argument put forth by proponents of slavery, wife beating, polygamy, parading in Belfast and so on [and fox hunting for that matter]: ‘hey, it’s a great old tradition’. Tradition itself is no rock on which to stand (see 2 Timothy: 4).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Komensky,

Don't you have to rely on extra-Biblical authority (or at the very least, on a chain of moral reasoning that it is quite clear that the writers of scripture never made themselves) to condemn slavery and polygamy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

quote:

---

Why not? heaven here would be nice. As if suffering and sin is a melting pot serving a greater purpose?

---

Hold on. You believe suffering has no purpose, and is simply outside of God's will and plan? That's interesting.

-Digory

---

Yes, yes, and yes, Digory. (Even though I'm not the person you were addressing!)

A person who is suffering MAY be able to use suffering to some purpose. (E.g., the moms who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving when their kids were killed.)

But suffering, in and of itself, has no deep purpose--and any god who would send it would be a sadist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

]First off and most importantly, you have inadvertantly suggested that venerating Mary and/or praying to her is on the same level as slavery, wife-beating, and polygamy. That's the kind of emotional argument that is completely unnecessary.

---

quote:

---

You also spoke about, "...the flimsy reason that since parts of them are in agreement with the Bible some other parts might also be true..."

I'm not sure if this is true, it's probably not any more flimsy than the reasons people gave for including books in the canon originally, which by the way, is tradition that is accebed by anyone who accepts the canon, even "sola scriptura."

---

quote:

---

Where is the passage that forbids communicating with the dead?

---

quote:

---

And what passages in Scripture do you feel conflict with the idea that Mary should be held in high regard?
-Digory

---

quote:

---

Where is the passage that forbids communicating with the dead?

quote:

---

Here are a few: Deuteronomy 18 (excerpts): ‘Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in a the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord’.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
An akathist to a saint is not a seance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
'Consulting the dead' is not the same as praying to them.

---

quote:

---

Do you think Jesus broke this commandment when he spoke with Moses on the mountain? (I accept that your rules allow him to speak with Elijah)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
'Consulting the dead' is not the same as praying to them.

---

I would think that it is. What's the Greek used here? What do you think you do when you pray?

---

quote:

---

No, I don't think that Jesus broke the law here. The incident you speak of is after the Transfiguartion – a completely different situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ishbel:
But isn't the point that they're not dead dead? That they are alive? I thought that was sort of the point of Saints, that they're the ones we can be reasonably sure are alive in Christ.

Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ishbel:
But isn't the point that they're not dead dead? That they are alive? I thought that was sort of the point of Saints, that they're the ones we can be reasonably sure are alive in Christ.

---

quote:

---

Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.

---

Yes, but 1) Jesus was ressurected from dead and 2) Jesus is God and he commands us only to pray to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.

---

Yes, but 1) Jesus was ressurected from dead and 2) Jesus is God and he commands us only to pray to him.

---

I pray thee, Komensky, that thou wouldst show me where in the Holy Scriptures our Lord didst command us to pray only to Him.

---

quote:

---

In fact, "pray" doesn't mean what you think it means.

---

quote:

---

Jesus did not command us to pray to no one but God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
[qb]

quote:

---

Jesus died, but praying to him isn't consulting the dead.

---

Yes, but 1) Jesus was ressurected from dead and 2) Jesus is God and he commands us only to pray to him.

---

I pray thee, Komensky, that thou wouldst show me where in the Holy Scriptures our Lord didst command us to pray only to Him.

---

I don't care for your patronising tone for starters. But to answer your question:

Matthew 5:6 'But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.'

1 Timothy 2:5: 'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,'

Acts 4:24: When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.

I would have thought this was clear.

Furthermore, who can say what is more pleasing to God than God himself? The perfect example of how to pray is given to us from Jesus himself in the Lord's Prayer. Luke 11: 'He said to them, "When you pray, say: " 'Father, hallowed be your name,"

quote:

---

In fact, "pray" doesn't mean what you think it means.

---

How dare you.

quote:

---

Jesus did not command us to pray to no one but God.

---

See above (and above).

quote:

---

As for your first point -- yes, Jesus is risen from the dead. And that is why we can pray to Mary and to the saints whose bodies are asleep in the grave but who live in Him. That wasn't possible before the Resurrection, but now that he has destroyed death and trampled down the gates of Hell, it is possible. To deny that is to deny Christ's victory over death.

---

You are conflating several things into one here. But it is a moot point.

K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
I don't care for your patronising tone for starters.

---

quote:

---

But to answer your question:

Matthew 5:6 <snip>
1 Timothy 2:5: <snip>
Acts 4:24: <snip>

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

In fact, "pray" doesn't mean what you think it means.

---

How dare you.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

As for your first point -- yes, Jesus is risen from the dead. And that is why we can pray to Mary and to the saints whose bodies are asleep in the grave but who live in Him. That wasn't possible before the Resurrection, but now that he has destroyed death and trampled down the gates of Hell, it is possible. To deny that is to deny Christ's victory over death.

---

You are conflating several things into one here. But it is a moot point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Read 1 Timothy 2:5 again and then tell m eif it is still not clear to you.

---

quote:

---

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

---

quote:

---

Also, who do you think the saints are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Komensky:
[qb] Read 1 Timothy 2:5 again and then tell m eif it is still not clear to you.

---

quote:

---

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

---

quote:

---

So whatever verse 5 means, it can't mean that it's wrong to pray for other people, nor to ask other people for their prayers, since Paul is here not just asking but exhorting Timothy to pray for others, and says that these prayers are good and acceptable in the sight of God.

---

quote:

---

There is one God, and one mediator -- but there are many who pray.

Tell me, Komensky, do you believe that it's wrong to pray for others? Or to ask others for their prayers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
(yawn) Yet again, I have never asserted this. It is prayer to other than God that I drew into question. Pay closer attention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:If you would chide others for the tone of their posts to you, it would be well for you to be careful with the tone of your own posts

---

quote:

---

That said, do you consider it acceptable to direct requests of any kind to anyone other than God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

That said, do you consider it acceptable to direct requests of any kind to anyone other than God?

---

What do you mean by 'direct request of any kind'? I certainly ask things of other living people, yes, if that' what you mean. Look Josephine, you asked some questions, I answered them. You asked for Bible verse, I provided them. Where is this going?

---

1. Josephine, please pray with me for George Bush;
2. Blessed Mary, please pray with me for George Bush;
3. Holy Spirit of God, please pray with me for George Bush;
4. Josephine, please be kind to George Bush;
5. Blessed Mary, please be kind to George Bush;
6. Lord God, please be kind to George Bush?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Komensky,

Can I try to sort out what you think is lawful?

I'll take as an example a prayer which according to 2 Timothy is proper - that George Bush, a person in authority, should be blessed (that is, made deeply happy), and two of God's saints, Josephine, who is alive in the flesh and in Christ, and Mary, who is alive in Christ. If I am trying to obey Paul's command to pray this prayer, which of these can I lawfully say:

1. Josephine, please pray with me for George Bush;
2. Blessed Mary, please pray with me for George Bush;
3. Holy Spirit of God, please pray with me for George Bush;
4. Josephine, please be kind to George Bush;
5. Blessed Mary, please be kind to George Bush;
6. Lord God, please be kind to George Bush?

If you think that any of these are not lawful, where in scripture are they forbidden?

---

quote:

---

Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I understand the concept of praying through the saints / Mary is similar to asking a friend to pray for you.
Only it is not, an example I would give you is on Wednesday two prayer warriors of our church came up to me at our house group and said we prayed for you today (my name was in the church prayer diary that day) and asked me how I was getting on with my job search - that is not the kind of physical encouragement I would get from Mary no?

---

quote:

---

* This is not dogma for me so I will not be upset if someone corrects me. In fact I would be positively encouraged by it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Would you rather pray to the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God or one of His creations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

But my question was more that, if, say, once a year, I feel it would be helpful to ask Jesus' mother to pray for me, whether I'm allowed to? And if not, why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:


There is no precedence in the Jewish faith before the cross and a few centuries after that, that people are praying to the dead (or for the dead). This is a practice which is totally alien to the early church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

* This is not dogma for me so I will not be upset if someone corrects me. In fact I would be positively encouraged by it.

---

"This" refers, of course, to your assertion "that there are apparently twice as many written prayers to Mary as there are to God" -- an assertion that is breathtaking in its ignorance. At least I am forced to assume that it's deliberate, wilfull ignorance, because any other conclusion would be far less charitable, and would probably end up in the nether regions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
Neither Mary nor any of the other saints are dead. This is really important - we wouldn't be able to ask any of them to pray for us if they were. Like josephine says, Christ being risen makes all the difference (possibly one of the greatest understatements in creation...).

I don't find it particularly helpful (or correct) to talk of Mary (or any other saint) "answering" prayer. God answers prayers. We merely ask Mary, or any of the other saints to pray for us as we would ask people we know on earth to pray for us. It is God who answers.

I also don't find it very helpful to through omni words around. They are human descriptions of God which work in some situations and not others. Neither of the two options that you present, Dobbo, make any sense to me in the context of my experience of God.

---

quote:

---

Dobbo said:
Can you see that if God and Mary have the same capability of hearing prayers then you are either lowering God to Mary's level or raising Mary to God's level? What you are doing either way is making Mary and God equal in capability of hearing prayers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
I'm suggesting that omnipresence is not the most helpful way to think about God's presence. It's too broadbrush for my liking. I don't deny that God is everywhere, but I think that we need to be able to recognise that his "presence" somewhere is first and foremost a mystery and that he is able to be present in different ways (?extents). For example, I would say that God is present in the world in a different way post-Pentecost because of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, he was present in a markedly different way during the earthly life of Our Lord. He is present in a different way again in the Eucharistic species. He is present in a different way again in the Church. To brush all these (which are by no means exhaustive btw) up into omnipresence often obscures understanding rather than aiding it. At any rate omnipresence is a human way of describing God - it is not something that is necessarily intrinsic and unique to his very nature. It may be de facto unique to him. Query: is the devil omnipresent? (I ask this genuiunely - I don't know what I think is the answer).

Coming now to Mary, I'd want to say that hearing and presence are two different things. I don't think actually that Mary needs to be omnipresent in order for her to hear our requests to her. I would say rather that it's through our communion (fellowship if you prefer) with her (and all the saints) that she is able to "hear" our requests.

quote:

---

Dobbo said:
Can you see that if God and Mary have the same capability of hearing prayers then you are either lowering God to Mary's level or raising Mary to God's level? What you are doing either way is making Mary and God equal in capability of hearing prayers.

---

Without meaning to give offence, I'm struggling on this to reduce it to more than "Can you see that if God and Mary have something in common then you are either lowering God to Mary's level or raising Mary to God's level?" I think it comes from brushing too broadly in our descriptions.

---

quote:

---

No. The devil is not, and cannot be, everywhere at once (omnipresent). This is just one of many attributes of God that satan does NOT share, and serves to emphasise that satan, the devil, is in no way comparable to, let along equal to, the one and only God.

The following may help to illustrate the point.

In Job chapter 1 we are told that satan came into (v 6) and out of (v12) the presence of God. Here at least is one place where satan is not always present.
In Matthew's gospel chapter 4 verse 3 we are told the "tempter came to him" [Jesus] at the start of his temptation, and in verse 11 "the devil left him" afterwards. Therefore the devil had not been with Jesus immediately before or immediately after his temptation.
James also tells us that we are to "Resist the devil..." with the result that "...he will flee from you" (James 4 v 7). If he 'flees' (runs away) he cannot also be present.

---

quote:

---

Jeremiah 23 v 24
Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
As for asking Mary (or another dead person) to pray for you; Josephone and (someone else, I've forgotton who) argue that it is the same asking a friend to pray for you. Well, I can ask a friend 'will you pray for me?" and they can say 'yes' or 'no'. Dead people (or just to clearer, those on the other side of death) cannot answer, they are physically not present to be asked.

---

quote:

---

Now before you go and argue that neither is Jesus, the difference is you pray to him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyinred:
This may be going off topic - so feel free to ignore me if so ...

but I'm intrigued by the notion that this thread has worked on that prayer is asking. One aspect of prayer is asking, yes. But the guidance that Jesus gave about prayer goes much further than that.

---

It seems to me that, in a discussion like this, the other things that we often call prayer might be more accurately described by other words -- worship, meditate, contemplate, and so on. In normal usage, we might lump all of those into the single word pray, and expect others in our own tradition to be able to determine from context which aspect of prayer (in this broader and more modern sense) we're talking about.

But in a discussion with people of other traditions, where the context is limited and the presuppositions are so different, we can probably communicate more clearly and with less misunderstanding if we try to say exactly what we mean.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I'm a Lutheran who -- gasp -- has sometimes asked for the intercession of the saints; again, in the same way I've asked Shipmates and other friends of mine to pray for particular people and situations; because, as has been noted, at least for those of us who affirm the concept of the Communion of Saints, the dead in Christ are alive in Christ. The metaphysics of how the BVM or any of the other "saints in light" can hear our requests for them to pray on our behalf is really not a question that keeps me up at night. We'll all find out someday.


A caution I'd like to put forward here, and something I've noted in other discussions: No matter what our Christian faith tradition, we tend to carry around with us theological baggage related to that tradition's origins, and also tend to respond to certain theological or ecclesiastical stimuli with certain emotional, knee-jerk reactions that aren't particularly helpful in achieving, if not agreement, then mutual understanding. I can understand why some may find the idea of saints' intercession on our behalf problematic in theological terms, but the strong emotional response this topic seems to elicit leads me to suggest that people need to step back from their own inherited assumptions about what other brands of Christian believe and do, and listen to what the other side is saying. I certainly grew up with a certain amount of culturally inherited suspicions about "praying to the saints" (a misunderstanding of what's going on, BTW), "using Mary to do an end run around God," etc.; and I've certainly met some less well catechized people in traditions that place a strong emphasis on our relationship with the saints, who get it wrong and do indeed have a childish and frankly idolatrous attitude about saints' intercession; but that doesn't negate the possibility that the saints do somehow hear us and intercede for us, the same way our Christian friends on this mortal coil do, nor does it mean that people in the more radical Protestant traditions don't have their own set of weak links in their theology and praxis.

And...in response to the observation that the saints are often invoked for "gimme" prayers: I'll just share that, one 2 a.m. or so, in the middle of a very low time in my recent past, and in the context of much very heartfelt prayer addressed directly to God, I also had a kind of internal one-way conversation with a fairly famous contemporary Christian who's been dead for several years now, whose life and written works have been a great inspiration to me, and who had struggled with some of the same issues that I was struggling with at that time. It was less a request for intercession and more a thank-you for his witness and example. Whether or not this saint of the Church heard me at all that dark morning, or if I was just engaging in some comforting happy talk to myself, is not a question I can answer with scientific certitude any more than any of us can "prove" that there is a God or that God hears our prayers. But at least for me, trying to understand my situation through the lens of faith, it was valuable to call on a departed brother in Christ at that moment, someone whom I know had lived through the same feelings I was feeling at that point and had overcome them.
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I think we have reached the traditional impass. Most of the Protestants put Jesus and the Bible as the highest authority in the matter of prayer and relationship with God, whereas some others place 'tradition' as an equal or higher authority. Our Lord taught us how to pray, he gave us a model and told us to whom we should pray (and in this he unsurpringly agrees with teh rest of scripture), you can ignore it (as some here have chosen to do).


K.
 

---

Posted by sanc (# 6355) on :
 
In answer to my contention that Jewish faith has no precedence regarding praying to dead saints to interceed in our behalf Bonaventura replied:

quote:

---

by Bonaventura

Sorry, but this is bullshit. There is much evidence of similar practices in Judaism. No time to detail it now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
I think we have reached the traditional impass. Most of the Protestants put Jesus and the Bible as the highest authority in the matter of prayer and relationship with God, whereas some others place 'tradition' as an equal or higher authority. Our Lord taught us how to pray, he gave us a model and told us to whom we should pray (and in this he unsurpringly agrees with the rest of scripture), you can ignore it (as some here have chosen to do).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanc:


There is no precedence in the Jewish faith before the cross and a few centuries after that, that people are praying to the dead (or for the dead). This is a practice which is totally alien to the early church.

---

Sorry, but this is bullshit. There is much evidence of similar practices in Judaism. No time to detail it now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
I think we have reached the traditional impass. Most of the Protestants put Jesus and the Bible as the highest authority in the matter of prayer and relationship with God, whereas some others place 'tradition' as an equal or higher authority. Our Lord taught us how to pray, he gave us a model and told us to whom we should pray (and in this he unsurpringly agrees with teh rest of scripture), you can ignore it (as some here have chosen to do).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
As for praying to dead saints, requesting their intercession on our behalf and much else besides, even that they would "save" us (as per a liturgical prayer to the Theotokos in Orthodoxy), I too would like to hear the Jewish evidence on this, especially from the second temple period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Since the Jews of the second temple period (or any other) would disagree with the statement "Jesus rose from the dead," I would not expect them to believe anything after that statement. For the Jews, people who are dead are simply dead.

---

quote:

---

For us, they are alive in Christ, who has conquered death. That difference in belief results in a difference in behavior. We pray to those who have preceded us in death, knowing that they are not truly dead. The Jews believe they are truly dead, so don't pray to them.

---

quote:

---

Prayer to the Theotokos

Our most gracious Queen, our hope, O Theotokos, Who receivest the orphaned and art the intercessor for the stranger; the joy of those in sorrow, protectress of the wronged, see our distress, see our affliction! Help us, for we are helpless. Feed us, for we are strangers and pilgrims. Thou knowest our offences; forgive them , and resolve them as Thou dost will. For we know no other help but Thee, no other intercessor, no gracious comforter, only Thee, O Theotokos to guard and protect us for ages of ages. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Sanc's wording is a little confusing. Praying for the dead is a separate subject entirely and deserves its own thread. I believe that this practice within Judaism is well documented in the second temple period up to 70AD. It is linked to the Jewish belief in the general resurrection rather than any doctrine of purgatory.

---

quote:

---

As for praying to dead saints, requesting their intercession on our behalf and much else besides, even that they would "save" us (as per a liturgical prayer to the Theotokos in Orthodoxy), I too would like to hear the Jewish evidence on this, especially from the second temple period. A hasty dismissal of sanc's post as "bullshit" tells me nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Joshepine, you are a hysterical trouble-maker and teller of great fibs. I won't be responding to your outrages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:[snip] ...Instead, you are throwing out comments that boil down to, "You're wrong, and you don't love God."

---

quote:

---

That level of conversation isn't even appropriate for an elementary school playground. I certainly expect better on the ship, from a fellow Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:[snip] ...Instead, you are throwing out comments that boil down to, "You're wrong, and you don't love God."

---

I never said or even intimated this.

quote:

---

That level of conversation isn't even appropriate for an elementary school playground. I certainly expect better on the ship, from a fellow Christian.

---

Exactly.

K.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Alex:
What do Protestants actually think the RC Church and other catholics are doing in promoting such belief? Do they think there is some conspiracy to undermine true faith (a house divided sprongs to mind though)?

---

quote:

---

Or perhaps, after all, it is true!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Prayer to the Theotokos
[...]
For we know no other help but Thee, no other intercessor, no gracious comforter, only Thee, O Theotokos to guard and protect us for ages of ages.

---

quote:

---

Thou knowest our offences; forgive them , and resolve them as Thou dost will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Thou knowest our offences; forgive them , and resolve them as Thou dost will.

---

This I cannot comprehend or (pending explanation) agree with.

I suppose it might be asking Mary to forgive us offences against her personally - perhaps, the grief we cause her by rejecting her son - which would, after all, be only polite before going on to request something of her. Or it might be asking her to forgive in the way that a catholic might say 'Father, forgive ... ' to a priest - not asking for the personal indulgence of the priest as a man, but for a declaration of forgiveness by him as the minister of a forgiving God.

Either seems to me to stretch the apparent meaning a little too far.

---

quote:

---

For the Jews, people who are dead are simply dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
My previous post needs deleted (along with this one). Faithful sheepdog already raised the point.

My apologies, I didn't take time to read everything.

Tom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ladyinred:
This may be going off topic - so feel free to ignore me if so ...

but I'm intrigued by the notion that this thread has worked on that prayer is asking. One aspect of prayer is asking, yes. But the guidance that Jesus gave about prayer goes much further than that.

---

It seems to me that, in a discussion like this, the other things that we often call prayer might be more accurately described by other words -- worship, meditate, contemplate, and so on. In normal usage, we might lump all of those into the single word pray, and expect others in our own tradition to be able to determine from context which aspect of prayer (in this broader and more modern sense) we're talking about.

But in a discussion with people of other traditions, where the context is limited and the presuppositions are so different, we can probably communicate more clearly and with less misunderstanding if we try to say exactly what we mean.

---

quote:

---

Would you rather pray to the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God or one of His creations?

---

quote:

---

Would you rather talk to the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God or one of His creations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Especially given that a common Protestant presupposition is that praying means `talking to God'

---

quote:

---

and so the idea of praying to the saints is obviously idolatrous because it expands to `talking to God to the saints' which thus implies that one sees the saints as in some way equal to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
and so the idea of praying to the saints is obviously idolatrous because it expands to `talking to God to the saints' which thus implies that one sees the saints as in some way equal to God.

---

Well, yes. Maybe a new word needs to be found so as not to confuse people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Thou knowest our offences; forgive them , and resolve them as Thou dost will.

---

This I cannot comprehend or (pending explanation) agree with.

I suppose it might be asking Mary to forgive us offences against her personally - perhaps, the grief we cause her by rejecting her son - which would, after all, be only polite before going on to request something of her. Or it might be asking her to forgive in the way that a catholic might say 'Father, forgive ... ' to a priest - not asking for the personal indulgence of the priest as a man, but for a declaration of forgiveness by him as the minister of a forgiving God.

Either seems to me to stretch the apparent meaning a little too far.

---

I too have problems with this kind of language. I tend to see it through your first explanation, if I don't dismiss outright it as inappropriate (as sometimes it very much seems to be). In place of your second, I'd say it was asking her to pray for our forgiveness to God. But it does come across as having gone too far in the direction of making Mary the "fourth person of the Trinity" as some anti-catholic wags have phrased it. I far prefer the wording in the (rather RC) rosary prayer: "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death."

But to say "some Orthodox and some Roman Catholics go too far in their devotion to Mary" isn't terribly different from saying "some Protestants go too far in their esteem for the Bible." Some OC and RC are guilty of Mariolatry. Some Protestants are guilty of Bibliolatry. That a thing can be taken too far does not mean that it is bad in itself; only that it needs to exist within bounds. (Not accusing you of anything here, Eliab! Just using what I said in answer to your post as a springboard to a broader point.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The language of such prayers is indeed beautiful, but I'm afraid its extravagance discourages those of us who otherwise might take a shot at talking to the saints. It really seems to blur the line between worship and veneration.

---

quote:

---

O victorious leader of triumphant host! We, your servants, delivered from
evil, sing our grateful thanks to you, O Theotokos! As you possess
invincible might set us free from every calamity so that we may sing:
Rejoice! O unwedded Bride!

---

quote:

---

Beneath your tender mercy we flee, Birthgiver-of-God.
Reject not our prayer in our trouble, but deliver us from harm,
Only Pure and Blessed Lady. Amen

---

quote:

---

Prayer at the Icon of the Theotokos

Since thou art a well-spring of tenderness, O Theotokos, make us worthy of compassion; Look upon a sinful people; Manifest thy power as ever, for hoping on thee we cry aloud unto thee: Hail! as once did Gabriel, chief Captain of the Bodiless Powers.

---

quote:

---

All-merciful Virgin Theotokos, Mother of compassions and love for mankind, my most beloved hope and aspiration! 0 Mother of the most sweet and most desired Savior, Who exceedeth every love, Jesus Christ, the Lover of mankind and my God, the Light of my darkened soul! I, the exceeding sinful and hopeless one, fall down before thee, to thee I make my prayer, 0 well-spring of compassion, Virgin Mary, who didst bear the Abyss of compassion and Depth of mercies and love for mankind: Have mercy on me, have mercy on me, I painfully cry to thee; have mercy on me who am all in wounds, who have fallen among brutish thieves and who am, alas!, stripped naked of the garment in which the Father clothed me. Wherefore I lie stripped of every good deed, my wounds stinking and festering before my madness. My Mistress, Theotokos, look down on me, I humbly pray thee, with thy merciful eye and despise me not, who am all in darkness, all in filth, all immersed in the mire of passions, terribly fallen and unable to stand. Do thou take pity on me and grant me a helping hand, lift me up out of sinful depths, 0 my Joy! Deliver me from them that surround me; make thy face to shine upon thy servant; save the perishing, cleanse the filthy, raise up the terrible fallen: for thou canst do all things, as thou art the Mother of God Almighty. Pour forth on me the oil of thy compassion and grant me to overflow the wine of compunction, for I have acquired thee as truly the only hope in my life; turn thou not away from me who flee to thee, but behold my grief, 0 Virgin, and the longing of my soul and accept this prayer and save me, 0 thou the Mediatress of my salvation . Amen.

---

quote:

---

A wonderful and marvellous healing has been given to us by your holy icon, O sovereign Lady Theotokos. By its appearance we have been delivered from spiritual and physical ills, and from sorrowful circumstances. So we bring you our thankful praise, O all-merciful Protectress. O sovereign Lady, whom we call "The Inexhaustible Cup": bend down your ear and mercifully hear our lamentation and tears that we bring to you, and give your healing to those who suffer from drunkenness, so that we may cry out to you with faith: "REJOICE, O INEXHAUSTIBLE CUP THAT QUENCHES OUR SPIRITUAL THIRST!"

---

quote:

---

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
(this should give Josephine a chance to put her toys back in the pram).

---

quote:

---

When I pray, I only pray to God through Jesus Christ and here is why:

Who can say what is more pleasing to God than God himself? The perfect example of how to pray is given to us from Jesus himself in the Lord's Prayer. Luke 11: 'He said to them, "When you pray, say: " 'Father, hallowed be your name,"

---

quote:

---

1 Timothy 2:5: 'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,'

---

quote:

---

These two verses makes it clear to whom one addresses prayer.

---

quote:

---

Paul gives further advice on how to pray:

Matthew 5:6 'But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.'

---

quote:

---

1. How can we know the final judgement of the Lord? (In other words, who has been saved?)

---

quote:

---

2. Even if we accept the ‘passing through’ definition, in the story of Lazarus, the Bible tells us not to cross that line: Luke 16:26: ‘And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

---

quote:

---

Of course I realise that this line of thinking does not take tradition into consideration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

...You're making, in my opinion, an unjustifiable leap of logic here. I could use your argument to say that one should never pray anything other than the Lord's prayer. Do you restrict yourself to that?

---

No, I do not limit myself to only saying The Lord's Prayer.

quote:

---

1 Timothy 2:5: 'For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,'

---

Originally posted by GreyFace: The implication of you using this prooftext is that it is legitimate to ask for the prayers of the mediator - Christ Jesus.

---

quote:

---

St Paul wrote St Matthew's Gospel?

---

quote:

---

Would you answer another yes/no question, please? Do you think it would matter to God if we asked for the intercession of someone about whom we'd been innocently wrong, to the extent that he would condemn it as idolatry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:I believe your reading [about lLazarus] is mistaken again. Reading the rest of the story reveals that the chasm is between the blessed dead and the dead in torment, between Abraham+Lazarus and Dives, not between the dead and the living. You prooftexted out of context and made the text mean something totally different.

---

quote:

---

Of course I realise that this line of thinking does not take tradition into consideration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Jesus instructs us: ‘when you pray, do this’. [...] Matthew 5:6 'But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
As for the difference between praying to God and Jesus, it is a tricky one and I do not know 'the answer'. I do know they are of the same substance, so the difference between praying to God/Jesus is small fish compared to praying to those who are not part of the Godhead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
... Even if God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial (as they are for Trinitarians), your interpretation of Christ's giving us the "Our Father" is that we must only pray to the Father - i.e., not to the Son (a different Person whether consubstantial or not).

---

If you now want to say that prayer to God the Son is also allowed, then you'll have to drop the claim that only the Person addressed in the "Our Father" may be prayed to, and I don't see how you can any longer invoke Christ's prayer "instuctions" as evidence against praying to others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Ok, these passages do not rule out praying to Mary, but that seems to be questioned in 1 Timothy, where we are told that Jesus is one an only intercessor between God and man. I also think that arguing for what Jesus did not say could be a slippery slope.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

O victorious leader of triumphant host! .....

---

web page

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since thou art a well-spring of tenderness, O Theotokos, make us worthy of compassion; Look upon a sinful people; Manifest thy power as ever, for hoping on thee we cry aloud unto thee: Hail! as once did Gabriel, chief Captain of the Bodiless Powers.

---

web page

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

0 well-spring of compassion, Virgin Mary, who didst bear the Abyss of compassion and Depth of mercies and love for mankind: <snip> <snip> thou canst do all things, as thou art the Mother of God Almighty. <snip> turn thou not away from me who flee to thee, but behold my grief, 0 Virgin, and the longing of my soul and accept this prayer and save me, 0 thou the Mediatress of my salvation . Amen.

---

web page

---

quote:

---

The problem I have with language and prayers like these is - they are not like asking a friend to pray for you but are giving attrinutes to Mary that I believe are only due to God.

For example

Satan may have might but only God is invicible in His might.

---

quote:

---

My understanding of icons was that you look beyond the icon to God in yet the prayer to the icon seems to be directed to Mary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:


First, and most important, because Christ destroyed the power of death, the saints are alive in Christ. That is the reason we can pray to the saints. I am quite certain you believe that Christ is risen. What effect do you think that has on Christians? On those who are alive, and on those who are, in your words, dead?

---

quote:

---

Second, prayer is not a synonym of worship. A quick check of Merriam-Webster Online shows that its primary meaning is entreat or implore. Surely its lawful to entreat or implore people other than God. In fact, this is normally the language used by plaintiffs addressing courts. It's old-fashioned, and restricted to religious and legal usage, but that's what it means.

---

quote:

---

Third, prayers addressed to the saints are no more like seances than medications are like the making of magical potions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Digory,

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

---

The sweetest words any of us here can ever hear.



Thanks, K. Watch those bitter jabs!

-Digory
 

---

Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
A quick check of Merriam-Webster Online shows that its primary meaning is entreat or implore. Surely its lawful to entreat or implore people other than God. In fact, this is normally the language used by plaintiffs addressing courts. It's old-fashioned, and restricted to religious and legal usage, but that's what it means.

---

Josephine,

I like your explanation of the word "pray," and an earlier distinction made between this usage and the traditional (at least by modern Protestants) understanding as "talking to God" or as encompassing "worship" and "meditation."

My question is... what do you think Jesus meant by it when he used the word? Just a curious question to pick your oversized brain.

Any Greek/Aramaic scholars who want to parse out the word Jesus used for "pray" from the texts?

-Digory
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

The Bible tells us to address our prayers to God the Father and that's good enough for me.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

The Bible tells us to address our prayers to God the Father and that's good enough for me.

---

Only it's not, apparently! Unless you've changed your mind and don't pray directly to Jesus or the Holy Spirit? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Very funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
A side point Josephine, there was a fascinating programme on Radio 4 this morning about St. Nicholas, you can hear it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/bookoftheweek/pip/yculc/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
I am quite certain you believe that Christ is risen. What effect do you think that has on Christians? On those who are alive, and on those who are, in your words, dead?

quote:

---

Redemption and promise of eternal life.

---

---

quote:

---

Second, prayer is not a synonym of worship. A quick check of Merriam-Webster Online shows that its primary meaning is entreat or implore. Surely its lawful to entreat or implore people other than God.

quote:

---

Yes, you've said this before, but I don't see the relevance here. Could you clarify the application to the circumstances under consideration?

---

---

quote:

---

Third, prayers addressed to the saints are no more like seances than medications are like the making of magical potions?

quote:

---

I don't agree with medicine analogy at all. <snip> But this is beside the point. The Bible tells us to address our prayers to God the Father and that's good enough for me.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

That's all? I think this may be the root of our difficulty, then, because, from my way of seeing things, the Incarnation and most specifically the Resurrection changed everything.

---

quote:

---

You say that we can't pray to anyone other than God. If pray means worship, that's true. But pray doesn't always mean worship. Otherwise, lawyers and all plaintiffs would be worshipping the judge when they entered papers saying "The plaintiff prays the court to .... " or "prays that the court shall ...."

---

quote:

---

...A command of one thing is not a prohibition of something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
But it would seem that we disagree that passages in the Bible amount to a prohibition of these 'other' prayers. We may have to leave it at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

Mediatress is problematic, I know. When I was an inquirer, I asked about the prayers where that term shows up. In our usage, it doesn't mean a female equivalent of Christ. It refers specifically to her role as the one who bridged the chasm between the Divine Nature and human nature in the Incarnation. She is the mediatress of our salvation, not at all in the same sense that Christ is the Mediator between God and Man, but because God became incarnate through her. That mediation (of a radically different kind than Christ's mediation) is what the prayer refers to. I'm not sure I've explained that at all well. Do you see what I'm getting at?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

My understanding of icons was that you look beyond the icon to God in yet the prayer to the icon seems to be directed to Mary?

---

Yes, the prayer before the icon is directed to Mary. The prayer passes through the icon to the person depicted in it. And as the person in the icon is also an icon, being made in the image of God, any honor or praise granted to the icon or to the saint is ultimately honor and praise to God.

If you get a chance, you should read "On the Divine Images" by St. John of Damascus. It's a slender book, but it sets forth our theology of icons as well as any.

---

quote:

---

That's from an akathist, which, as I mentioned before, is a rather OTT poetic form. But if you read the entire akathist (as I'm sure you did), all the lavish praise of Mary is linked explicitly and repeatedly to her being the Mother of our God. That's why we venerate her.

---

quote:

---

IKOS 3 - Rejoice! Propitiation of the whole world.
IKOS 8 - Rejoice! For through Thee our sin is remitted:
IKOS 10 - Rejoice! Provider of God’s mercy.
IKOS 12 - He hallowed and He glorified thee

---

quote:

---

From polluted lips accept thou a prayer, 0 unblemished, pure and most- pure Virgin Theotokos, and despise not my words, 0 my Joy, but look down on me and have pity, 0 Mother of my Maker. During my lifetime do thou not abandon me, for thou knowest, 0 Mistress, that I place all my hope on thee and all mine aspiring is alter thee. Wherefore, at the time also of my death, stand thou before me, 0 my helper, and be not then ashamed of me. For I know, 0 Virgin, that I am guilty of many sins, and I, the wretched one, tremble, contemplating that hour. But thou, my Joy, reveal unto me then thy presence, work thy mercy marvelously upon me, 0 Mediatress of my salvation. Rescue me, 0 Mistress, from the cruelty of the demons, and from the fearsome and terrible trial of the spirits of the air, and deliver me from their malice, and transform all that grief and sorrow into joy by thine enlightenment and grant me to pass unharmed through the principalities and powers of darkness and to attain to worship at the throne of glory before Christ our God Who sitteth there with His Beginningless Father and All-Holy Spirit. Amen.

---

quote:

---

The monk who wrote the above prayer made it clear that Mary does anything she does, not by her own power, but because she's God's Mom, and as she did at the wedding at Cana, she can still do

---

quote:

---

The first bit of that prayer uses a Byzantine poetic convention that you'll see in lots and lots of our prayers and liturgical poetry.

---

quote:

---

All-merciful Virgin Theotokos, Mother of compassions and love for mankind, my most beloved hope and aspiration

---

quote:

---

Yes, the prayer before the icon is directed to Mary. The prayer passes through the icon to the person depicted in it. And as the person in the icon is also an icon, being made in the image of God, any honor or praise granted to the icon or to the saint is ultimately honor and praise to God.

---

quote:

---

I suppose it might be asking Mary to forgive us offences against her personally - perhaps, the grief we cause her by rejecting her son - which would, after all, be only polite before going on to request something of her. Or it might be asking her to forgive in the way that a catholic might say 'Father, forgive ... ' to a priest - not asking for the personal indulgence of the priest as a man, but for a declaration of forgiveness by him as the minister of a forgiving God.

Either seems to me to stretch the apparent meaning a little too far

---

quote:

---

Wisdom, Most Holy Theotokos, save us

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
But it would seem that we disagree that passages in the Bible amount to a prohibition of these 'other' prayers. We may have to leave it at that.

---

Before we do, Komensky, can I just clear up the outstanding issues in re Christ's giving us the "Our Father"? Is this still one of those passages which you think excludes prayers to the Saints? Are there others you haven't raised, or to which you don't think we've given a good answer?

---

quote:

---

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I did not notice the following said of Mary in

quote:

---

IKOS 3 - Rejoice! Propitiation of the whole world.
IKOS 8 - Rejoice! For through Thee our sin is remitted:
IKOS 10 - Rejoice! Provider of God’s mercy.
IKOS 12 - He hallowed and He glorified thee

---

Can we excuse poetic language from being theologically preposterous - I am sure I could find some satanic poetry that no one on the board would think it was acceptable because "It is ok it's just poetry."

---

quote:

---

From what you are saying Mary stands between us (in the sense of bridging the Divine and the human)and Jesus, and Jesus who stands before God as a man. But then why pray to ask her to show mercy surely it is only God we should look to for mercy.

---

quote:

---

Why are mercy and mediatress mentioned in the same sentence - is it because there is a direct correlation? There certainly is when we talk of Christ being mediator and showing mercy.

---

quote:

---

Not to put words into your mouth but does that mean Mary has some sort of power over Christ- being His mother an' all ?
ie Mary was able to force Jesus to do something? Or was it simply out of God's good pleasure that Jesus performed the miracle?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

All-merciful Virgin Theotokos, Mother of compassions and love for mankind, my most beloved hope and aspiration

---

You seem to miss my whole analogy of my wife being merciful but only God is all merciful and I thought it was my most humourous comments?

---

quote:

---

Do these middlemen take a "cut" of the praise ?

---

quote:

---

Wisdom, Most Holy Theotokos, save us

quote:

---

I think it gets stretched even further, perhaps to breaking point?

---

---

In Romans, Paul says that he wants to provoke his brethren to jealousy, and so save them. He said that a wife may save her husband, or a husband his wife. And Peter said that baptism saves us.

But getting wet doesn't save us. It's God who saves us through baptism. Paul couldn't save his brothers on his own. It's God who could save them, through Paul's ministry.

So how is saying that Mary saves us any different? We are not saying that Mary is the Savior, any more than Paul was claiming to be the Savior. A man can be a part of his wife's salvation, by his love for her, by his prayers for her, by his godly example, and in that sense he can save her. In the same way, Mary, by her obedience, by her prayers, by her love, can participate with God in our salvation.

God does most of his work through the hands of those who love him and serve him. When you say, "Thanks for dinner!" to the person who prepared it, does that mean you are giving them thanksgiving and praise that belongs to God? Not at all.

Again, it's not either/or. It's not like we love Mary and therefore we don't love God. It's not like we honor her and therefore we don't honor God. Rather, because we do honor God, we also honor those whom he has honored. Because we love God, we love those whom he loves.

[ 13. December 2005, 20:40: Message edited by: josephine ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
You are awfully persuasive, josephine . Maybe I ought to try out a rosary. And there are a few saints I've always been tempted to chat with: Philip Neri, Hugh of Lincoln, Teresa of Avila, Martin de Porres, Michael the Archangel...
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You are awfully persuasive, josephine . Maybe I ought to try out a rosary. And there are a few saints I've always been tempted to chat with: Philip Neri, Hugh of Lincoln, Teresa of Avila, Martin de Porres, Michael the Archangel...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:
My question is... what do you think Jesus meant by it when he used the word? Just a curious question to pick your oversized brain.

Any Greek/Aramaic scholars who want to parse out the word Jesus used for "pray" from the texts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You are awfully persuasive, josephine . Maybe I ought to try out a rosary. And there are a few saints I've always been tempted to chat with: Philip Neri, Hugh of Lincoln, Teresa of Avila, Martin de Porres, Michael the Archangel...

---

FWIW, I've found it useful to start with, "God, I hope you don't mind this...Hi X, how are you?". Helps me deal with qualms.

---

Good idea.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
And since there are four or five words that mean different shades of what we mean by "pray," it's no wonder that we can hear the same Scriptures and understand different things from them, and listen to each other and not understand what the other means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Can we excuse poetic language from being theologically preposterous - I am sure I could find some satanic poetry that no one on the board would think it was acceptable because "It is ok it's just poetry."

---

quote:

---

Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face,
Great chieftain o the puddin'-race!

---

quote:

---

Empyse of prys, imperatrice,
Bricht polist precious stane;
Victrice of vyce, hie genitrice
Of Jhesu lord soverayne;
Our wys pavys fro enemys
Agane the Feyndis trayne;
Oratrice, mediatrice, salvatrice,
To God gret suffragane;
Ave Maria gracia plena:
Haile, sterne meridiane;
Spyce, flour delice of paradys
That baire the gloryus grayne.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
An example of extravagent praise of Mary, clearly influenced by Latin forms but in first-rate English (Scots, if you insist) verse might begin to bridge the conceptual gap:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
My heart is in sync with the Orthodox veneration of the Virgin, but my mind has more trouble with it and I hate when those two can't get on the same page!

---

I understand entirely. I was raised Presbyterian, and Presbyterians just don't do saints. When I was in college, I found much about the Catholic church attractive, but there were the saints. I thought I could never join a church where the saints are venerated.

But here I am, in the Orthodox Church, where the saints have played an enormous role in my spiritual growth and development. Because of them, I understand God better, am more sure of his love, and, I think, I love him more.
 

---

Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
Josephine –you have put forward some very good arguments and it has challenged me to open parts of my mind that I in times past used to contemplate on God and you have help restored that desire to know God more and understand what I believe and why I believe it. For this I truly thank you. It has taken me back to a point when I was a young Christian and was “turned on” by theology and knowing more about the one I love.

I had to go back to some first principles with respect to your points firstly about mediatress. The first thing I had to look at was what is a mediator

A mediator is one who intervenes between contesting parties for the sake of making reconciliation

Such as a judge mediating in a divorce setting or a tribunal in an employment dispute.

I have to confess that in looking at it further Moses could be considered a mediator for Israel (Deuteronomy 5 v 5) so I will have to concede that calling Mary mediatress is not as problematic as I first thought. So Mary could be likened to Moses.

As you have suggested, the scriptures apply the term, in a higher sense than the above, to Christ.(ie the one mediator between God and man) It is Christ that
1) In respect to God, He should propitiate the just displeasure of God by expiating the guilt of sin
2) In respect to man, He should reveal the truth to us concerning God and our relationship to Him, that our deliverance from sin and from the powers of an evil world shall be perfected.
This mediatorial role involved all three of Christ’s great functions of prophet, priest and king.


veneration of the Theotokos
I found this article very revealing – and it helped me understand Orthodoxy as opposed to Roman Catholicism in respect to the Immaculate Conception. I do not know if this article truly reflects Orthodoxy as a whole – but I understand the logic and thinking of it (though not necessarily agreeing with it. Iconoclasts rule ok ).

What interested me is the following

quote:

---

Thus, when the Church tells us in her hymns and icons that the Apostles were miraculously gathered from the ends of the earth in order to be present at the repose and burial of the Mother of God, we as Orthodox Christians are not free to deny this or reinterpret it, but must believe as the Church hands it down to us, with simplicity of heart.

---

quote:

---

A Prayer to Your Guardian Angel

O Angel of Christ, holy guardian and protector of my soul
and body, forgive me every transgression which I have
committed this day and deliver me from every craft of my
enemy and adversary. May I not anger my God by any sin. Pray for me to the
Lord, His sinful and unworthy servant, that He may make me worthy of the
grace of the All-Holy Trinity, and of the Most Blessed Theotokos, and of all the
Saints. Amen

---

quote:

---

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

---

quote:

---

O Most holy Theotokos, save us!

---

quote:

---

"Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

---

quote:

---

Josephine
It's God who saves us through baptism

---

quote:

---

Josephine
Of course Mary doesn't force her Son to do anything. Does a righteous man, by his effectual fervent prayer, force God to do anything? Yet the Scriptures say that such prayers avail much. If so, Dobbo, if your effectual, fervent prayers will avail much, why should we not expect that the prayers of God's mother will also avail much? When God answers your prayers, is it because you have forced God to do it, or out of God's good pleasure?

It's not "either God chose to do it, or Mary made him do it," it's "because of God's mercy, grace, and love, he chose to do what Mary asked." Change Mary to Dobbo, and it's the same thing.

---

So if I fervently ask Mary that she would help me win the lottery – God will choose to do it?

quote:

---

Josephine
Sorry for missing it. Remember what John told us? "We know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
promised us that we shall be like him." So if God is holy, you shall also be holy. If God is all-merciful, you shall be all-merciful

---

quote:

---

To whom then will you liken Me
That I would be his equal?" says the Holy One.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
You led me to a pet hate of mine

quote:

---

Josephine
It's God who saves us through baptism

---

I get very upset when baptism is linked to salvation when I think of all those that have been aborted. As a protestant, not holding to baptism being anything other than an outward sign, I have no problem in being able to say I know God will have saved all these ones as He did with David’s son – but what happens when you make baptism a requirement of salvation, can you have that same certainty – because there certainly is no baptismal font in the abortion clinics. Did God have them conceived just so that they have a lost eternity.

---

quote:

---

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
veneration of the Theotokos
I found this article very revealing – and it helped me understand Orthodoxy as opposed to Roman Catholicism in respect to the Immaculate Conception. I do not know if this article truly reflects Orthodoxy as a whole – but I understand the logic and thinking of it (though not necessarily agreeing with it. Iconoclasts rule ok ).

---

quote:

---

What interested me is the following

quote:

---

Thus, when the Church tells us in her hymns and icons that the Apostles were miraculously gathered from the ends of the earth in order to be present at the repose and burial of the Mother of God, we as Orthodox Christians are not free to deny this or reinterpret it, but must believe as the Church hands it down to us, with simplicity of heart.

---

Would this apply to all the teachings of the Orthodox Church?

---

quote:

---

I think two verses in scripture states my problem with using any other name with respect to being saved

Acts 4 v 12

quote:

---

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

---

compare with

quote:

---

O Most holy Theotokos, save us!

---

---

quote:

---

You led me to a pet hate of mine

quote:

---

Josephine
It's God who saves us through baptism

---

I get very upset when baptism is linked to salvation when I think of all those that have been aborted. As a protestant, not holding to baptism being anything other than an outward sign, I have no problem in being able to say I know God will have saved all these ones as He did with David’s son – but what happens when you make baptism a requirement of salvation, can you have that same certainty – because there certainly is no baptismal font in the abortion clinics. Did God have them conceived just so that they have a lost eternity.

---

quote:

---

Josephine
Of course Mary doesn't force her Son to do anything. <snip> It's not "either God chose to do it, or Mary made him do it," it's "because of God's mercy, grace, and love, he chose to do what Mary asked." Change Mary to Dobbo, and it's the same thing.

quote:

---

So if I fervently ask Mary that she would help me win the lottery – God will choose to do it?

---

---

James 4:3.

quote:

---

Josephine
Sorry for missing it. Remember what John told us? "We know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
promised us that we shall be like him." So if God is holy, you shall also be holy. If God is all-merciful, you shall be all-merciful

quote:

---

Logically – if Christ is eternal we shall be eternal? If Christ is infinite we shall be infinite?

---

---

quote:

---

In my research may I also say that again I apologise about saying there are more prayers to Mary (trouble of looking at books rather than finding out for yourself) - the ones that I have picked are truly a small minority of all the prayers written - with the vast majority being to part of the Godhead.

---

quote:

---

Hold on! You're reading things I didn't say. I did not say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. I simply quoted what St. Peter said, in his epistle that is now part of the Bible. He said that baptism saves us. But that doesn't mean it's required for salvation. If I say that penicillin wil cure strep throat, that doesn't mean that a different antibiotic won't work just as well. God can do as he pleases, he can save whom he will.

If you are going to object to the fact that God saves us through baptism, would you tell me how you understand St. Peter's words? If he was wrong, then the Bible is wrong, because that epistle is included in the Bible. But I don't think you'd say that. So how do you understand it?

---

quote:

---

Josephine
Sorry for missing it. Remember what John told us? "We know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
promised us that we shall be like him." So if God is holy, you shall also be holy. If God is all-merciful, you shall be all-merciful

quote:

---

Logically – if Christ is eternal we shall be eternal? If Christ is infinite we shall be infinite?

---

To really explain the Orthodox take on this, I'd need to get into an explanation of the essence of God and the energies of God. We will not ever share God's essence -- we can't even begin to understand what it is. But we will share completely in God's energies. I think Gregory Palamas and Vladimir Lossky are the theologians you'd need to read to be able to get it.

---

Yes and I appreciate it is difficult for you to discuss certain concepts because the East is ontological whereas the West is juridicial - although I have not got to the bottom of these words - but it certainly sounds like I know a bit

East talks of energies and essence west talks of attributes of God.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In my research may I also say that again I apologise about saying there are more prayers to Mary (trouble of looking at books rather than finding out for yourself) - the ones that I have picked are truly a small minority of all the prayers written - with the vast majority being to part of the Godhead.

---

Thank you very much, Dobbo. That means a lot to me.

---

quote:

---

Greyface
The point actually worth discussing in all of this is really whether or not the dead-in-Christ can hear us and thus whether asking for the intercessions of the departed is effective or a colossal waste of time, but for some reason we rarely get past "Stage One - Are Catholic Idolaters?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
You know, that's what I like about the Ship and similar forums -- I don't expect that we'll ever all agree with each other, but if we can understand each other, I think that's a good thing. Understanding is not unity, it's not love, but it's a beginning.

The abbess who said that would probably say yes, as would many others. But there would likely be just as many others who would say no; you're expected to believe that it's true, but how it's true may be open for discussion.

---

quote:

---

Josephine
Of course Mary doesn't force her Son to do anything. <snip> It's not "either God chose to do it, or Mary made him do it," it's "because of God's mercy, grace, and love, he chose to do what Mary asked." Change Mary to Dobbo, and it's the same thing.

quote:

---

So if I fervently ask Mary that she would help me win the lottery – God will choose to do it?

---

James 4:3.

---

quote:

---

But Paul said that a believing husband could save his wife, and he said that he hoped to save his fellow Jews by provoking them to jealousy. Those are verses in Scripture, too. How do you reconcile them with Acts 4:12?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
A haggis does not have a face

---

So you have never seen a wild haggis - like the uphill one that has shorter front legs so that it can run up hills and then it rolls down hills (or the clockwise and anticlockwise ones for that matter)
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 


Have you wandered away from Heaven, by chance?
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
A haggis does not have a face

---

So you have never seen a wild haggis - like the uphill one that has shorter front legs so that it can run up hills and then it rolls down hills (or the clockwise and anticlockwise ones for that matter)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
One thing that I don't understand (no, I still haven't read St. John's book) is why so many of our prayers end with , "through the Theotokos, save us". I know we're not saying that He has to save us through her, but I'm not sure what we are saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
so have I. What I meant to get at was the implication that somehow they are required or necessary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
You led me to a pet hate of mine

quote:

---

Josephine
It's God who saves us through baptism

---

I get very upset when baptism is linked to salvation when I think of all those that have been aborted. As a protestant, not holding to baptism being anything other than an outward sign, I have no problem in being able to say I know God will have saved all these ones as He did with David’s son – but what happens when you make baptism a requirement of salvation, can you have that same certainty – because there certainly is no baptismal font in the abortion clinics. Did God have them conceived just so that they have a lost eternity.

---

I think paragraph 1257 of Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church answers this point well

quote:

---

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[59] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[60] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[61] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

---

Carys

---

quote:

---

teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores).

---

quote:

---

Weed
It wasn’t lying to say x happened even if x never happened, as long as x was the meaning of whatever non-X thing had happened.

---

quote:

---

If (for the sake of argument) the story of Mary living in the Holy of Holies is untrue (and I suspect it is) then it does her no honour. It is a lie, even if it is a pious lie. Maybe it is a lie from which some people can glean symbolic truth. That's no excuse for presenting it as historical fact, if it is not. And it seems to me to be unnecessary - what matters about Mary is that she said 'yes' to God and because of that he became incarnate as our Saviour. The magic stories about her seem to me to be much less worthy than the plain fact of her goodness.

---

quote:

---

O Angel of Christ, my holy Guardian and Protector of my soul and body, forgive me all my sins of today . Deliver me from all the wiles o the enemy, that I may not anger my God by any sin. Pray for me, sinful and unworthy servant, that thou mayest present me worthy of the kindness and mercy of the All-holy Trinity and the Mother of my Lord Jesus Christ, and of all the Saints. Amen

---

quote:

---

Have you wandered away from Heaven, by chance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I think what you can get away with in poetry per Eliab is not something you can in other forms of writing.

---

quote:

---

O Angel of Christ, my holy Guardian and Protector of my soul and body, forgive me all my sins of today . Deliver me from all the wiles o the enemy, that I may not anger my God by any sin. Pray for me, sinful and unworthy servant, that thou mayest present me worthy of the kindness and mercy of the All-holy Trinity and the Mother of my Lord Jesus Christ, and of all the Saints. Amen [QUOTE]Now no matter what you say about essence or energies - can angels really forgive sins - again I fall into the camp of the pharisee (bad company I know) but "who can forgive sins but God only"

---

quote:

---

Josephine having gone into the texts about Paul saving by jealousy and husbands and wives saving each other - I think what it is suggesting is by personal physical witness they are seen to be working out God's salvation. I think if you are trying to infer that we can save or show mercy I think it is inaccurate - as it is said "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" and that is not Mary speaking for clarification purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
I think what you can get away with in poetry per Eliab is not something you can in other forms of writing.

---

That's true in our literary traditions. But I know that there are other literary traditions that don't make as much of a distinction between poetic forms and prose forms, and I think you have to understand any literature in the context of the literary tradition in which it was written.

---

quote:

---

It is a lie, even if it is a pious lie.

---

quote:

---

But, Dobbo, if your brother sins against you, on the authority of our Lord Jesus himself, you are to forgive him seventy times seven times. And he taught us to pray, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." So it's not God only who forgives sins, but each of us has to forgive sins when we are sinned against.

So how do we sin against our guardian angels? Certainly, when we do things that make their jobs more difficult, we are sinning against them.

---

quote:

---

When our Lord said, "blessed are the merciful," is he not saying that we should show mercy?

Again, when Paul says, and we say, that someone or something other than God saves us, we understand that the someone or something is working with God to effect our salvation. They're being used by God, if you want to think of it that way -- but not against their will, or without their free choice and participation

---

quote:

---

I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you;" (Luke 15:18 - RSV)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Dear Dobbo, Josephine and St. Sebastian

Concerning both the intercession and the forgiveness of the Mother of God, the Holy Fathers, our Holy Guardian Angel, etc, it may be useful to remember that according to the Orthodox Church we are never alone, either in being saved, or in sinning.

There are many prayers which invoke the intercessions of other members of the Church. In the Morning Prayers we pray not only for the clergy, but ask that God may have mercy on us by their prayers. The same is true in regard to our spiritual fathers (usually our priest/confessor). Although it is God who saves us, He saves us in communion with others, and this mutual prayer and request for prayer is an expression of this communion.

Similarly, when I sin against you, I sin not only against God, but against the whole community of earth and heaven. Remember that the Prodigal Son said

quote:

---

I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you;" (Luke 15:18 - RSV)

---

My sin, even if committed in secret, is perhaps rather like a sneeze, which spreads my sickness to others. Another aspect of this 'communion' of sin is shown in the life of Elder Paisios of Mount Athos who used to condemn himself when another monk sinned.

---

quote:

---

Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge.

---

quote:

---

My sin, even if committed in secret, is perhaps rather like a sneeze, which spreads my sickness to others

---

Does that mean sin could have infected Mary from external sources?
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
So how a prayer can ask an angel to forgive all sins is beyond me.

---

quote:

---

For example one of the greek words for mercy - is hilaskomai - which is used in the publicans prayer and it includes the idea of propitiation - are you saying that Mary or ta Guardian Angel can show that type of mercy ie propitiate away our sins. Surely that is what Christ did on the cross of Calvary? Is it appropriate to ask for mercy from Mary in that context?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dobbo:
Does God's salvation require others to be involved in salvation?

---

quote:

---

Presumably the angel is offended by every single one of your sins, so you may ask the angel's forgiveness of all of them. The thing is, you seem to keep thinking that things are mutually exclusive, that it has to be one way or the other. You seem to think that, if we ask the angel's forgiveness, we won't be asking God's forgiveness. Which is absurd. We ask the angel's forgiveness, AND we ask God's forgiveness

---

quote:

---

Originally by Mousethief
I too have problems with this kind of language.
<snip>
But it does come across as having gone too far in the direction of making Mary the "fourth person of the Trinity" as some anti-catholic wags have phrased it.
<snip>
But to say "some Orthodox and some Roman Catholics go too far in their devotion to Mary" isn't terribly different from saying "some Protestants go too far in their esteem for the Bible." Some OC and RC are guilty of Mariolatry. Some Protestants are guilty of Bibliolatry.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

Presumably the angel is offended by every single one of your sins, so you may ask the angel's forgiveness of all of them.

---

quote:

---

Dobbo, I'm sorry, but this is getting frustrating. You seem to be stuck on the idea that we must be idolators, that we must give Mary or the other saints or the angels something that is the exclusive prerogative of God.

And every time we go through it in exhaustive, and exhausting, detail, you seem willing to concede that, while we may see things a little differently, we're not idolators after all.

---