Orthodox and Marian Beliefs

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Fone Bone 2001

Read this post by Marduk (...)

Yeah, I don't think it's worth anyone's time to bring Mardukm's viewpoint into the discussion. I say this not out of disrespect for the guy, but because I wasn't born yesterday and I don't really want to have to read or participate in the 30 pages of nonsense that will follow. I learned my lesson last time, thank you.

Actually, it's when zooming far in that the truth of the assertion that we share the same Faith becomes most apparent.

No. That is false no matter the magnification. My point is that you can neither smooth over the differences by glossing over them nor recognizing them as real but as two expressions of the same faith when they are not.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

Would you say there is not enough devotion in Eastern theology?

I would say there is a proper amount of it, and formed the right way. But you can say I am biased. But to us Mary as the Theotokos says it all. No need to keep defining Marian dogmas of so many other titles. Ultimately all these other titles bestowed by the Roman Church on Mary can be traced back to the fact that she is the Theotokos. But having too many titles as I see it only creates confusion instead of a better understanding.

And to those who says that the East lacks the devotion to Mary the way the West has, let me put it this way. Compare how many times she is mentioned in the Roman Mass compared to the Divine Liturgy. I mean, we have a whole section dedicated to her. I don't see that as lacking devotion.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

But having too many titles as I see it only creates confusion instead of a better understanding.

Apparently, "Theotokos" does not say it all.
Typically during the divine liturgy:
... Presvjatuju, prečistuju, preblahoslovennuju, slavnuju vladyčicu našu bohorodicu i prisnoďivu Mariju..

Even more: Akathist to the Theotokos -
http://www.stsymeon.com/akathist.html

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

Apparently, "Theotokos" does not say it all.
Typically during the divine liturgy:
... Presvjatuju, prečistuju, preblahoslovennuju, slavnuju vladyčicu našu bohorodicu i prisnoďivu Mariju..

Even more: Akathist to the Theotokos -
http://www.stsymeon.com/akathist.html

Akathists are usually written that way. You can look up an Akathist to any saint and find the same thing. But when it comes down to it, there is no other title thrown around attached to Mary. Theotokos is akin to Christ. We also call Jesus many other things in praises, but Christ says it all.

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Akathists are usually written that way. You can look up an Akathist to any saint and find the same thing. But when it comes down to it, there is no other title thrown around attached to Mary. Theotokos is akin to Christ. We also call Jesus many other things in praises, but Christ says it all.

I don't see the point of the argument. The truth is clear enough: we have and use all sorts of titles.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by dvdjs

I don't see the point of the argument. The truth is clear enough: we have and use all sorts of titles.

Those titles aren't dogmatized

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by jwinch2

I disagree, and apparently so do many Eastern Catholics and Orthodox. Regardless,.

With History Then we disagree. The rest of the statement doesn't strenghten your case as thats a two-way street.

Originally Posted by jwinch2

I wasn't responding to you when I made that statement in the first place. .

I was responding to you. Sorry you don't seem to think that should occur.

Originally Posted by jwinch2

A college freshmen with no training in historical or theological research is not any kind of source for interpretation of the Church Fathers that I am interested reading..

Early Chuch Fathers "actual" writtings, Acts of Andrew, Epistles of Mark and James, all real, as with any historic research if you do not trust it than follow up on his research. Its all there. The point he was a freshman is irrelavant in Historic value. The works he quotes actually exist. And they are "all" referenced

Originally Posted by jwinch2

the Church has not chosen to define the term in any sort of official capacity.

They did define this in V-II and assigned the role to the Church. Thats the "official" capacity. Which if you read the footnotes from the CCC below they then refer to V-II , which this link is slightly off I do believe. LG 62 would be correct. Had they chose not to define this then they wouldn't appear in the CCC and LG.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...K01GJw-cGThxZg

Define they have done.

Originally Posted by jwinch2

The question in relation to the Mediatrix of All Graces title is whether graces continue to pass through her to this day. And as you said, it is not required belief. .

All this is also defined CCC 967 to 970 CCC the footnotes will take you deeper in defining that Mary is the Mother in order of Grace. Though I noticed they are slighty off above. The CCC context is correct though. Nevertheless the CCC relates back to LG V-II as I have said. for further understanding.

Originally Posted by jwinch2

My own understanding and approach to Mary is probably more in line with Eastern Tradition .

How so?

Originally Posted by jwinch2

than some of the more extreme positions taken in the Latin Church..

What is the extreme position in church teaching? The one you state that was never defined or did you have something else in mind? Thus the "original" question.

[Cavaradossi]

Nobody is disagreeing with history here. Some are disagreeing with a particular interpretation of history which they find is so decontextualized that it is not faithful to the tradition which they have received. The Theotokos has always been venerated in the East by virtue of theosis and the incarnation. Decontextualize what is said about her by the Eastern Fathers at your own peril.

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Nobody is disagreeing with history here.

Actually that would be incorrect as you see from the above post in relation to the CCC/V-II. Thus an incorrect assessment. However, I do note that "everyone" is not disagreeing.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Some are disagreeing with a particular interpretation of history which they find is so decontextualized that it is not faithful to the tradition which they have received..

Key phrase "The Tradition which they have received"

Course that depends how one interprets or understands History in content/context as opposed to the understanding of Tradition which is still defined in real time. Apparently History is still not fully defined as today will be tommorrows history yet more clearly defined. I agree some do not like this, it is a very real truth nevertheless, which is often not fully understood but through time. These "some" then do this at their own "peril" as you mention below? Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The Theotokos has always been venerated in the East by virtue of theosis and the incarnation. Decontextualize what is said about her by the Eastern Fathers at your own peril.

I guess the "at you own peril" aspect when we speak of decontextualize would be a two way street then? Perhaps its a comment and point you make that everyone should keep in mind? I say Amen to that! Is 1854 history? I do believe so.

Nevertheless since we are talking "Orthodox" and Marian Beliefs.

So what is the correct verion of the Dormition "historically" since we are engaged here? How does John the Theologians fit into this. And which sight should be considered accurate? What do you personally make of his Thesis of the Dormition by John the Theologian above?

Do you know for fact who was at the Dormition as a witness and where is this recorded?

Do you know for fact where it occured?

How do you know it didn't occur in Ephesus? Which seems pretty possible?

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Those titles aren't dogmatized

Some are, some aren't. Those that aren't are no less true, and no less the mind of the church.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

I guess the "at you own peril" aspect when we speak of decontextualize would be a two way street then? Perhaps its a comment and point you make that everyone should keep in mind? I say Amen to that! Is 1854 history? I do believe so.

No, it really is not a two way street. The Orthodox do not use Western texts ripped out of their propter context to justify their Marian devotions.

So what is the correct verion of the Dormition "historically" since we are engaged here? How does John the Theologians fit into this. And which sight should be considered accurate? What do you personally make of his Thesis of the Dormition by John the Theologian above?

The website you linked to states clearly that the text appears first in the sixth century and that it is not authored by John the Theologian.

Do you know for fact who was at the Dormition as a witness and where is this recorded?

No.

Do you know for fact where it occured?

No.

How do you know it didn't occur in Ephesus? Which seems pretty possible?

We don't. The Church is not a magic divining instrument that one could find straight out of the I Ching. The Church reveals God to the world. Whether the dormition occurred at Ephesus, whether the world is flat, or if quintessence exists, the Church cannot tell us.

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The Orthodox do not use texts to justify their Marian devotions..

Really, then how did they come up with the Dormition? Do you have an eye witness?

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The website you linked to states clearly that the text appears first in the sixth century and that it is not authored by John the Theologian..

No it states.... "This Greek narrative is one of the earliest witnesses to the "Bethlehem" traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition, so-called because some of their events take place in Bethlehem. This is in contrast to other early traditions in which the setting is limited to Jerusalem. This narrative is probably from the sixth century, although it is difficult to be certain. It has tightly condensed earlier traditions that are evident in two Syriac manuscripts from the sixth century, as well as in later Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic narratives."

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://p...aNIe8i7d7V0L-g

You post the correct one then, since I suspect whichever one I chose won't be up to your standard. I have no issue with that, I understand "where" the work came from and when.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

No. No.We don't. The Church is not a magic divining instrument that one could find straight out of the I Ching. The Church reveals God to the world. Whether the dormition occurred at Ephesus, whether the world is flat, or if quintessence exists, the Church cannot tell us.

But it has with the Dorimition, and thus you rightly uphold this!

We don't have the Apostles testimony for this, do you?

"The Orthodox Church teaches that Mary died a natural death, like any human being; that her soul was received by Christ upon death; and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her repose, at which time she was taken up, bodily only, into heaven. Her tomb was found empty on the third day." Wiki-Pedia

So is this not correct? Then where is the "evidence" of testimony?

Cav what I see as "historical" factual evidence I post, thats what I am asking you to do? If you don't have it or can't then state that. So then YOUR belief is based on a Tradition which in fact cannot be "proven" with the Dormition?

My oh my and we should talk about the IC in the same regard right?

Whats the Queen of Heavens responsibility from the Eastern perspective? Would Love to hear this.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Really, then how did they come up with the Dormition? Do you have an eye witness?

An eye witness who recorded it? No.

No it states.... "This Greek narrative is one of the earliest witnesses to the "Bethlehem" traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition, so-called because some of their events take place in Bethlehem. This is in contrast to other early traditions in which the setting is limited to Jerusalem. This narrative is probably from the sixth century, although it is difficult to be certain. It has tightly condensed earlier traditions that are evident in two Syriac manuscripts from the sixth century, as well as in later Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic narratives."

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://p...aNIe8i7d7V0L-g

Read it again:

This Greek narrative is one of the earliest witnesses to the "Bethlehem" traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition, so-called because some of their events take place in Bethlehem.* This is in contrast to other early traditions in which the setting is limited to Jerusalem.* This narrative is probably from the sixth century, although it is difficult to be certain.* It has tightly condensed earlier traditions that are evident in two Syriac manuscripts from the sixth century, as well as in later Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic narratives.

The bolded sentence refers to the Bethlehem Narrative, not to the Jerusalem narratives

You post the correct one then, since I suspect whichever one I chose won't be up to your standard. I have no issue with that, I understand "where" the work came from and when.

The "correct" narrative is the one we read for the feast of the Dormition. All other narratives will vary in their degree of correctness based on what truths they reveal.

But it has with the Dorimition, and thus you rightly uphold this!

Uphold, yes. But not in the same manner as the hypostatic union or the incarnation.

We don't have the Apostles testimony for this, do you?

Nope.

"The Orthodox Church teaches that Mary died a natural death, like any human being; that her soul was received by Christ upon death; and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her repose, at which time she was taken up, bodily only, into heaven. Her tomb was found empty on the third day." Wiki-Pedia

So is this not correct? Then where is the "evidence" of testimony?

Not fully, no.

Cav what I see as "historical" factual evidence I post, thats what I am asking you to do? If you don't have it or can't then state that. So then YOUR belief is based on a Tradition which in fact cannot be "proven" with the Dormition?

Historical evidence for the end of the Theotokos' life is scant if it exists at all. We have quite a few pseudepigraphical works, but those can hardly be considered historical evidence.

My oh my and we should talk about the IC in the same regard right?

No, because the dormition narrative is not dogmatic for us. It is like an icon. We hold it to be true not because it is a physically accurate depiction of what happened upon the repose of the Theotokos, but because it reveals a greater truth to us. Just as it does not matter if my icon of Christ is composed of wood, paper, or stone, or if it is painted in acrylic, egg tempura, wax, or printed with ink, or if the image on it resembles what Christ physically looked like in the slightest, so long as the truth revealed by the icon remains the same, so too does it not matter if the dormition is an accurate depiction of the repose of the Theotokos, because truth is not correspondence.

Whats the Queen of Heavens responsibility from the Eastern perspective? Would Love to hear this.

This is the sort of stuff I'm talking about. The title Queen of Heaven is simply a poetic title for the Theotokos. It was never intended to have a particular dogma or responsibility attached to it. When taken in the context of the incarnation, it should be obvious that Queen of heaven is a term that refers not to a particular responsibility, but to the honor that is due to the Mother of our God. She is a Queen by honor, to be honored above all other kings, saints and created beings, with the exception of her Son, for the role she played in the economy of our salvation. Why people are not content to stop at that, but would wish to extrapolate from that poetic title ideas and interpretations unknown to the fathers, I do not understand.

[benjohnson]

Originally Posted by dcointin

She is our Mother, the most dear one to our Lord, and our greatest example of humility and sanctity.

As a Lutheran, this is where we draw the line. We would say that Jesus is the 'greatest example of humility and sanctity.'

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

... the dormition narrative is not dogmatic for us.

What does this mean?