www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Mary as the Ark of His Covenant

Thank you, Pani Rose and Alex, for sharing your thoughts. I am not here to 'discuss doctrine'. You have posted from your heart and I have listened and heard.

One thing I would like to contribute, and that is (my personal opinion) about the Bible. For me the Bible is the infallible Word of God and it is complete and nothing lacking. It does not fall short of anything, and it never contradicts itself. It is 'God breathed' or,as the Armenian Church also calls it "The Breath of God", according to 2.Tim.3:16 which says (KJV) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,..."

Traditions are man made and Jesus was well aware of the fact that traditions can mislead, even to the point of going against the commandment of God. May I remind of Matthew 15:1-3 from which it becomes clear that following the tradition of man can lead not only to sin but also can make the Word of God to no avail, as Mark also says in Mk.7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition,..." . (I realize that I am taking this portion of Scripture out of context, so no need to quote it back at me. The statement holds true as is.)

Therefore, if there is a valid and bonafide tradition that complements the Scripture, I am not against it but it has to have confirmation in the Word of God - for me. As long as I do not see it confirmed in the Scripture, I will have to consider it 'non-Scriptural'.

The reason why I have subscribed to this forum is to learn and to gain insight. The Holy Spirit has lead me here because He desires to show me a few things. And I trust Him that He will lead me into all Truth as Jesus has promised (John 16:13)

"Shew us thy mercy, O Lord, and grant us thy salvation." Ps.85:7 (the word 'Lord' in Hebrew being YHVH or Yahweh and the word 'salvation' in Hebrew being Yeshua)

Dear Shiloah,

And don't forget Psalm 45: 9-17!

The Word of God is exactly that.

That is why all Jesus and all He is and means to us has been made possible, by the Will of God, via Mary.

I remember when someone wrote me to say that he disagreed that Mary is the "Mother of God" and that it is nowhere stated in the Bible that she is.

And when I pointed out Luke 1:43 to him, he went away confused . . .

The Bible is a "Church" book since the Church canonized the 27 books of the New Testament. For each book that was accepted, another was rejected.

To accept the Bible as the Word of God is, at the same time, to make an act of faith IN THE CHURCH'S judgement that those 27 books constitute the New Testament.

In other words, outside of the teaching and interpretive framework of the Church, the Bible cannot be properly understood.

The fragmentation of the Protestant denominations is an extreme example of what happens when the Bible is taken out of its proper ecclesial context.

Alex

I found two interesting webpages about how the early New Testament writings came about and what other books existed at the time. I'll indicate the URLs here, but I see that this goes way beyond the topic of this thread, and I should continue it elsewhere on this forum if at all. I apologize if I have disturbed the peace here for a day. No need to reply any further to this.
Thank you all kindly,
Shiloah

http://www.ntcanon.org/

http://www.geocities.com/faithofyeshua/books_at_first_not_considered_inspired.htm

Dear Shiloah,

Well, this is always a timely topic!

The point is that the "product" that we know as the "New Testament" was canonized by the Church over time.

And, as your sources show as well, other books were read as scripture in the Churches to the point that even today there are Local and Particular Churches that have their own Canons of Scripture.

The Church once generally held the Epistles of Clement to be scripture.

The Ethiopian Church to this day places the Book of Enoch and that of Jubilees in its canon of the Old Testament - but it has other books in its "wider canon" of the Old Testament.

The Ethiopian Church also places the Apostolic Constitutions in its New Testament, adding eight further books.

The Assyrian Church has, I believe, 22 books of the New Testament.

The Christian Celts, as I understand, had the Shepherd of Hermas in their New Testament.

The Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches still do not have a uniform Old Testament canon.

The fact is that both written and unwritten aspects of Tradition were believed and held sacred by the Apostles and by Christ Himself.

The "Seat of Moses" reference, for example, is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament. It was a tradition from Moses that was unwritten and was affirmed by all nevertheless.

St Paul's mention of the battle for Moses' body - likewise nowhere written in the Old Testament, but it was an unwritten tradition that was held by all.

And the story of Nathaniel under the sycamore tree in the first chapter of John - that is actually more fully explained in New Testament deuterocanonical scripture.

No further reference is made to it in John which leads one to surmise it was a well-known story or else it was left to the other, older sources to tell it in full.

Clearly that would be an indication that the other books that were not finally included in the New Testament were part of the spiritual reading of the early Christians.

But the reason that this discussion has seemingly got off track, Shiloah, is because Pani Rose and I are reacting to an impression we are getting from you that may or may not be true.

Only you can set us straight on that.

If Sacred Tradition taught something that is not in the Bible, would you consider it to be somehow less worthy of belief as a result?

The invocation of saints is not directly in the Bible as the developed doctrine that we know it to be.

But it is commanded by the Church and her Seven Councils.

Would you have a problem with that?

Alex

Alex, thanks again for your response. You surely have interesting details to share which I gladly absorb.
Yet in regard to your last question, may I answer with another one? I think the one who has or had a problem has been you - and that was with my initial post. I had touched on 3 things that I asked an answer for, and have not gotten it as of now:

1. In the Gospels I do not see any special mention of Mary's position as
a) co-redemptrix
b) the true vine

2) Why don't we read anything in the Book of Acts about her in regard to these positions and for instance, from what John might have gleaned from his time with Mary in his household?

I mean, if it was the Church which assembled/allowed certain books into the canon of the Bible and others not, how come they did not integrate anything that is more specific about Mary and her position in the Body of Christ? Wouldn't that have prevented a lot of schismatic misunderstandings?

So, aren't these legitimate questions to ask? Or are you one of those who want to force-feed the sheep and leave them with a 'swallow or die' ?

I thought what Archimandrite Gregory had posted was very beautiful, and what Scott Hahn says in his article is exquisite, too, as everybody on this forum would agree, I guess.

Maybe I am not aware of rules on this board and maybe questions are not welcome? I am not here to stir up controversy but rather to learn and to gain greater understanding and insight into details pertaining to our faith. I attend a byzantine catholic church and so far nobody has questioned my integrity. I love the services and I consider it an utter lack in other denominations that they do not discern the Body of Christ adequately. Without the Body and Blood of my Savior life is death.

Have a blessed week-end, Alex. I am a sinner just as you are, but - Glory to God - we have been given a very encouraging new commandment by our Lord (John 13:34-35) "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

I love you with the love of Christ,
Shiloah

Hey Shiloah,

I think everyone is trying to answer your question the best they can. The bottom line is the Church tells us that the New Testament is about Jesus.

Question I would like to know why the Bible doesn't tell much about virgin Mary.

Answer These are the main references to Mary in the New Testament:

1. Annunciation, visit to Elizabeth, birth and early life of Jesus - Matthew 1,2; Luke 1,2

To call Mary the "Mother of Jesus" and yet refuse to call her "Mother of God" is to diminish Jesus as well as Mary, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly or fully God.

It was this sort of thinking that led to the formal definition of the title Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. Patriarch Nestorius had preached that Mary was not Mother of God, being only the mother of Jesus's physical body, which was then indwelt by God the Word. This was condemned as Heresy, since the Gospels tell us that the Word did not unite with man, but was made man. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.." (John 1.14). This is a crucial difference. Jesus was not two persons: the Son of God, and the Son of Mary, but one person, the Son of God and Mary. If this were not so, his death could not have saved us.

THE NATURE OF JESUS

1. To be our Saviour, Jesus needed to be both fully God, and fully man, descended from Adam. He could not be a counterfeit, or someone who just looked human..

2. God the Word has existed as spirit from the beginning of time.

3. At the Incarnation, through the action of the Holy Spirit, God the Word took flesh and full humanity from the Virgin Mary. Both His Human Nature and His human body came from Mary, These united with His Divine Nature in Jesus.

4. This produced one person with one consciousness, both fully God and fully man, who is truly both Son of God and Son of Mary.

5. . The Virgin Mary is therefore the Mother of ALL of the PERSON of Jesus Christ, and is therefore truly Mother of God the Son.

Nestorius did not recant, and founded his own church - which is no longer with us. In effect, in saying that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God, he was denying the reality of the incarnation. Attempts to downgrade Mary seem always lead to a downgrading of the full divinity of Jesus.
2. Woman, what have I to do with thee? - John 2:1-11
3. Is not his mother called Mary? - Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:16-31
4. Who is my mother? - Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21
5. Woman, behold thy son! - John 19:26,27

If we as Christians are brothers of Jesus, then, as with Jesus, God is our Father and Mary is our Mother.

The bible also teaches, that all Christians become part of the body of Christ. Again this re-emphasises the fact that as Christians become one with Jesus they share with Him, the Fatherhood of God and also, the motherhood of Mary.

The New Testament has two further passages which confirm Mary's motherhood of Christians:

John 19.25: Near the cross of Jesus, stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on the disciple took her into his home.

This is not just a personal bequest of his Mother to John, but, being from the cross itself, has a greater significance. First of all, if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of Mary, He would have made His first request to John. But if you look at the passage, you will see that His first statement is to Mary. The emphasis is therefore upon Mary being Mother to John, not John "looking after" Mary. John here represents all the disciples of Jesus, and hence all Christians, who are given Mary as their Mother.

Revelation 12.17: Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

This passage shows the Dragon (Satan), making war on the Woman (Mary)'s offspring, following the birth of Jesus. (see Queen of Heaven for more on Revelation 12) These offspring, clearly represent the community of Christians, who are "the rest of" Mary's children
6. With the early disciples - Acts 1:14
7. Made of a woman - Galatians 4:4

It is true, the Bible does not say much about Mary. However, the Bible tells us enough about her that we need to know. She was the virgin mother of our Lord, whom God chose by His grace to fulfill this special role in the plan of redemption. And for the unique privilege she is called blessed by all Christians and in all ages.

The Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary, namely, the perpetual virginity, the immaculate conception:

Quite simply this doctrine states that the Virgin Mary was preserved free of Original Sin from the moment of her conception, and so was made sinless.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS DOCTRINE?

It has to do with the Holiness of God. God cannot tolerate Sin. Mary as the God-bearer in Jesus had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches that God's presence demands and imparts holiness. (Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14; 1 Cor 3:17; 1 Jn 3:5-6; Rev 21:27). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year, under threat of death if God's instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her physical and spiritual relationship with God, necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness.

In other words, since Jesus took flesh in and from Mary's body, and also obtained His Human Nature from Her, she had to be perfectly sinless. The only question that then arises is when and how Mary was made sinless.

Mary did indeed agree she needed a Saviour:

Luke 1.46: And Mary said "My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour,"

But this presents no difficulty. We have seen that Mary needed to be perfectly sinless in order to bear Jesus. Did she attain that sinlessness through her own human efforts? No. She was redeemed by her son - as was all the rest of humanity. She needed God's Grace. And in order to be, and remain, sinless she needed that grace before her own birth.

We can see that in Luke 1.46 Mary speaks of God as her Saviour, but she speaks in the present tense. She does not say "God, who will be my Saviour." She has already been redeemed.

If we look at one of the Old Testament passages that Mary bases her words upon, we see this more clearly.

Isaiah 51.10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

As virtually every educated 1st Century Jew would have recognised, in echoing this passage, Mary clearly considered that God had already clothed her with the garments of salvation, and covered her with the robe of righteousness. Her sin had already been wiped away.

This is supported by the angel's greeting to Mary:

Luke 1.28: The angel went to her and said, "Hail, you who are full of grace (Literally: you who have been and remain filled with Grace). The Lord is with you."

Grace in the New Testament is seen as the antidote to sin. (Rom 3:24, 5:15-17, 6:14 11:6) So being filled with Grace strongly implies sinlessness. And since Mary required the grace of redemption before her own birth, it is quite fitting that this happened at her conception. Is this a problem for God? No. Jesus is the perfect Redeemer. Therefore he must have redeemed one person perfectly. That person is Mary, having been redeemed by Jesus from Original Sin from the moment of her own conception.

the assumption to heaven:

The problem with showing Mary's Assumption, (or the deaths of Mary or most of the Apostles, for that matter), in the Bible, is that the Gospel record ends before any of these events occurred. The Assumption is, however, implicit in Revelation Chapter 12. Mary's Bodily Assumption is also a long-standing teaching of the Ancient Churches. The celebratory festival in August dates from at least the 400s in Palestine, and had reached Gaul by the 500s. The setting of a Festival Day for a doctrine is evidence not only of a strong and almost universally-held belief in that doctrine, but also of a long-standing belief - since it is rare for Festival to be celebrated for a belief or incident for which there is not some long attestation. As a comparison, the date of December the 25th for the celebration of Christmas was set only in 354 AD by Pope Julius I.

Early references to the Assumption of Mary include Timothy of Jerusalem in around 380 AD, who wrote: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"

Gregory of Tours in 580 wrote: "Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who, we believe, was a virgin before and after childbirth, was, as we have said before, carried to Paradise preceded by the Lord amidst the singing of angelic choirs."

Apocryphal writings detailing the Assumption have been dated back to the 200s. Although other early references are few, the fact that the Celebration of Mary's Assumption into Heaven was not opposed in what was a highly disputatious age, argues strongly for a general acceptance and belief in the doctrine.

The Old Testament tells us that both Enoch and Elijah were assumed (taken) bodily into heaven. So Mary's Assumption, far from being unbiblical, in fact follows a strong Biblical pattern. Furthermore, it appears from the New Testament, (Jude 9), that Moses too may have been assumed into heaven, even though no record of this appears anywhere in the Old Testament. This, incidentally, provides a biblical record of an important teaching that was passed down over an extremely long period purely by Oral Tradition. In fact about 400 AD the Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. He was informed that there were no relics of Mary.

and the titles Queen of Heaven:

When we look into the Old Testament, we find even more support for the Queenship of Mary. Jesus is the Messianic King. This Messianic Kingship is pre-figured in the ancient and Godly Kingship of David and Solomon. At the time of the historic Israel, next to the throne of the King was a second throne. Many would assume that the second throne belonged to the wife of the King, but in Israel it belonged to the mother of the king. In Aramaic the word "Gebirah" means Queen Mother. Gebirah was the official title of the Queen Mother, and was a position of authority and honour. Her roles were advisor to the king, and advocate of the people; anyone who had a petition or sought an audience with the King did so through her. This was so when Adonijah cunningly sought a high-ranking bride from Solomon:

1 Kings 2: 17-21: So he continued, "Please ask King Solomon - he will not refuse you - to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife. "Very well," Bathsheba replied, "I will speak to the king for you." When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

The special status of the Queen Mother remained throughout the time that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah endured:

Jeremiah 13:18: Say to the king and to the queen mother, "Come down from your thrones for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads." The cities of the Negev will be shut up and there will be no-one to open them. All Judah will be carried into exile, carried completely away.

The Gebirah was a trusted advisor to the King:

Proverbs 31.1: The sayings of King Lemuel - an oracle his mother taught him: " Verses 2 to 9 continue with specific advice on being a good ruler.

See also 1 Kings 15.13 and 2 Kings 10:13; 12:1; 14:2; 15.33; 22.1

In Scriptural terms therefore, just as Jesus's Messianic Kingship is prefigured in the role of King of Israel, so Mary's role is prefigured in that of the Gebirah. The existence of this rare and unusual institution in Israel and Judah is providential. It reflects and prefigures the Messianic order. Mary is Heavenly Queen Mother, because her son Jesus is the Heavenly King.

mediatrix, our mother, our life, our hope and others are conspicuously absent from the Bible.

Why so? Simply because the Bible is a book about another person, who was chosen and appointed by God to be the mediator and savior of the world. That person is Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus said: �Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me� (John 5:39). The Bible is the Book about the Lord Jesus Christ and we should be wholeheartedly devoted to Him.

The Old Testament contains many "Types" or precursors of New Testament figures or events. Adam is accepted as a "type" of Jesus, who is sometimes called "the 2nd Adam". Adam, as the first man, sinned, and brought death to all. Jesus, as the second Adam, did not sin, and brought life. So too as Eve brought death to us through disobedience, " Mary as "the Second Eve", brought life through her obedience. So how is the first Eve described?

Gen 2:20: "The man called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living."

And so the Second Eve became the mother of all who live in Christ.

To back this up, let's look again at Adam and Eve as "types" of Jesus and Mary. Paul wrote of "..Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." (Rom 5.14.) The Church fathers spoke of: "Death through Eve, Life through Mary."

In A.D.155, Justin Martyr wrote,
".. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her" (Dialogue with Trypho)

St Irenaeus wrote:
"the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith."
(Against Heresies 180-199 A. D.)

We know that the First Adam and the First Eve both started their lives in an immaculate state, there being no Original Sin before the Fall. We also know that the Second Adam started his life in an immaculate state -- Christ had no Original Sin or its stain -- and so we should expect the Second Eve to also start her life in an immaculate state. If the First Adam and the First Eve were immaculate, and if the Second Adam was also immaculate, then the Second Eve will be immaculate as well.

Much of the devotion to Mary shown by Christians of the Catholic and other Ancient Churches depends upon Mary's mediation. This mediation is seen in terms of Mary's assistance in prayer and in obtaining grace.

Many Protestants oppose prayer to Mary and the Saints, citing this verse:

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; " (I Timothy 2:5).

SO IF JESUS IS THE ONE MEDIATOR, WHY PRAY TO MARY?

As in other cases, Protestant fundamentalists often tend to quote just one verse completely out of context. So let's look at the whole passage.

"I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings, for all those in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and holiness. This is good and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus."
1Timothy 2:1-5

From this full text of the passage we can see three important things:

1. Paul is asking fellow Christians to pray and intercede with God for those in authority and for other third parties.

2. These prayers and intercessions are being made on behalf of other people, and to God. This is a mediation of prayer. Christians are being asked to mediate between all people, Christian and non-Christian, and God.

3. Since this is all one passage, it is absolutely clear that when Paul refers to there being only one mediator between God and men, he is not referring to the mediation of prayer. Jesus's unique mediation is a different mediation - the mediation of our salvation.

Jesus is the one Mediator of our salvation, our only Saviour. But He is not our only intercessor, as the whole passage above clearly indicates. So the one passage that fundamentalists have used to deny intercessionary prayer, when read in context, actually backs up intercessionary prayer.

YES. BUT WHY SHOULD I ASK MARY OR ANYONE ELSE TO PRAY TO GOD FOR ME WHEN I CAN PRAY TO HIM MYSELF?

When we are ill, or someone we care for needs prayer, we ask other people to pray to God for us. Why do we do this if our own prayer is enough?
In James 5. 14-16 we are told to get the Elders of the Church to pray for us and to annoint us when we are sick. Reading on, we find:

James 5: 16-18 " ...The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. Elijah was a human being like us; yet he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain upon the land. Then he prayed again, and the sky gave rain and the earth produced its fruit."

So we see that intercession strengthens prayer. And the more righteous and faithful the intercessor is, the more powerful the prayer.

BUT THAT IS PRAYER ON EARTH. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT PEOPLE IN HEAVEN CAN NEITHER SEE US OR PRAY FOR US.

That is a recent, man-made doctrine, with no authority behind it.

Hebrews 12.1 speaks of "a great cloud of witnesses" who surround us, and who consist of the faithful holy ones of God. Many examples of these witnesses are given in the preceding Chapter 11 of Hebrews.

Later in the Bible we see this vision of heaven:

Revelation 4.4: Surrounding the throne were twenty four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.
Revelation 5.8: ...and the twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The twenty-four elders are shown offering the prayers of Christians to God; which is a mediatory role.

WHY MARY IN PARTICULAR?

The basic creed of Christianity, the Nicene Creed, accepted by all Trinitarian Christian Churches, refers to the Communion of Saints. All Christians in heaven and on earth are together (i.e. in communion) through Christ. As we have seen, those in heaven can witness what goes on on earth and offer prayers to God. This intercession is powerful, because those in heaven are truly "righteous".

Of all creatures in heaven, Mary is closest to God, being the God-bearer. As a fellow Christian, and indeed the first Christian, she has access to the throne of grace through Jesus. As the Mother of all Christians, she cares and intercedes for her children. As the Heavenly Queen Mother (see above) it is her office to make requests of the King of Kings. Therefore Mary's intercessionary prayer is the most powerful and effective.

Seeking Mary's intercession probably dates back to the earliest Christians. One of the oldest Christian prayers recorded in writing, the Sub Tuum, from the 200s AD, is a prayer to Mary:

We fly to your patronage, O holy Mother of God.
Despise not our petitions in our necessities,
But deliver us from all dangers,
O ever-glorious and Blessed Virgin!

BUT I DON'T NEED MARY WHEN I CAN GO DIRECTLY TO GOD.

Why not say "I don't need the rest of my family as long as I have my father"? The Church is a single body; the different members interelate and rely on one another: "The eye cannot say unto the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" (I Co 12:21).

WHY DO WE NEED MARY?

Mary has a vital part in the entire work of redemption. The Lord does not want to save us without our participation. He seeks our voluntary acceptance of salvation. He stands at the door, knocks and waits. (Rev. 3:10).
In the same way, since the incarnation of the Son of God was necessary for the salvation of the human race, that incarnation would not be achieved by force, but needed the consent of the chosen one. Thus the incarnation, and the salvation of the entire human race were brought about to a major extent because the Virgin Mary, by faith, consented to God's plan.
"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." (Luke 1:38)

The extent of Mary's act of faith is often overlooked. She was a single virgin, betrothed to Joseph, and giving birth to a fatherless child would place her in dire peril of disgrace, abandonment and possibly much worse, in a society that customarily stoned adulterers to death. Nor did she know what Joseph's or her family's personal reaction would be. Yet she did not hesitate to accept God's commission. Her trust in God made her the first Christian believer and the first among the redeemed. As the Mother of God, the girl from Galilee became the highest created being. When she said "yes" to God her answer was on behalf of the whole human race. Just as Eve's disobedience was on behalf of the whole human race. In this way, the Virgin Mary's significance in the work of our salvation is of the first order.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies (circa 189 A.D.) :

..the virgin Eve, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, was unhappily led astray,-- yet that deception was done away with because the Virgin Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, heard the truth spoken by an angel, and was obedient. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication receive the glad tidings that she should
sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word.
The former disobeyed God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, so that the Virgin Mary might become patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. In the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) is made amends by the correction of the First-begotten, the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.

In reference to the Blessed Virgin, St. Ephraem (373) said: "With the Mediator, you are the Mediatrix of the entire world" Antipater of Bostra, a Father of the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), wrote: "Hail you who acceptably intercede as a Mediatrix for mankind."

Revelation 12.17: Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. This takes us back to Her own children would have taken her into their home...look at Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Having been given to all Christians by Jesus as their heavenly Mother, Mary is always there for the help of her children.


WELL ENOUGH FROM ME: I have tried to combine things that I have and understand maybe if I have not confused you to much, something might help.

Pani Rose

You did a really beautiful job, Pani Rose, and I thank you for caring and sharing. Since days I have this line and melody from the liturgy going through my mind, like a constant prayer: "Through the prayers of the Mother of God, o Savior save us."

I agree with everything you say, and your explanations are beautiful. I will save them to pass them on to others to whom it might concern.(If you don't mind. I'll give the source and your name with it, of course )

You don't have to worry that I would ever try to diminuish the Lord or Mary. I am very aware of that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col.2:9)
He is Son of God and Son of man, and as the latter, Son of Mary.

The Holy Spirit took me to Luke 1:48 not too long ago and I was reminded of Mal.3:12. (This is one of the benefits of the KJV, that the same expressions reoccur and show the reader the relationship between two quotes) And in the footnotes I found the reference to Is.62:4 , which had been quoted in this discourse also.

You truly went the extra mile with me, Pani Rose, and I thank you for your kindness. You also provided much food for thought, which I receive as from the Lord.
Grace and peace to you,

Shiloah

"Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name." Mal.3:16

Oh my goodness... I will need a day off from work to read this (kidding).

I look forward to enough time to read this toughfully.

Thank you Pani Rose.

I know what 'rose' means, what does Pani mean?

-ray

Shiloah and Ray,

Thanks so much for your kind words. But that is the work of the Holy Spirit putting it together from things I have read and tried to understand over the years and saved parts, bits and peaces of. So He just put it together and made it all make sence. So lets just give Him the praise!

I laughed when I got to the end and back at Rev. 12, because He had taken me back to where He began teaching me about Mary at Gen. 3. It just all made sence. So give the glory to God and whoever wrote the works I don't know, not all of it is mine...but give thanks for all of their work. I have read many times that when something you read takes root in you then it is yours. The people that put all the efforts into their work are wonderful and I thank Jesus for letting their work take root in me.

That is cool Shiloh! I love it when He harkens me back to Scripture, even though I have used the Jerusalem Bible for some 23 years now, when things come from worte memory they come from the King James. I guess that is the protestant part of me too that will never let go.

Pani is the Slavonic term used for the priest or deacons wife. My husband is Fr. Deacon Stan Cholewinski. He with with Fr. Deacons' Lance and John at St. Cyril and Methodious and was ordained last Nov.

Pani Rose

Dear Pani Rose

At St Joseph's RC Church in the Back of the Yards area of Chicago, where I grew up, their was a Father Stanislaus Cholewinski who became the Church's Pastor in 1910 and remained until his death in 1965. He was legendary in the neighborhood.

St Joseph's is also one of the most beautiful churches in Chicago, and I was fortunate enough to make it there (11th year in a row) on this year's Good Friday pilgrimage.

Dear Shiloah,

Yes, you are right, but I think I understand your point now . . .

"Co-Redemptrix" is really outside my Eastern theological framework and so it is best left to Roman Catholics to explain it.

As for the "Vine" image, this is not about doctrine, but about devotional/theological reflection on the Scriptures and the truths it teaches about Christ's Incarnation put to poetic liturgical expression.

Mary can be said to be a "Vine" because she gave birth to the "Divine Cluster" that "Drips the Mystic Wine."

That is the kind of devotional/theological reflection that the Protestant reformers, for example, did not oppose, although they opposed the formulation of new doctrines and the like.

The Eastern Churches would never, if it was up to them alone, have defined the Immaculate Conception and Assumption as doctrines at all - they would not have seen the need for it owing to the fact that the total holiness and bodily assumption of the Mother of Christ our God are issues that are part of the rule of their liturgical tradition - lex orandi, lex credendi.

As for the divisiveness issue, that is certainly a consideration here.

But there was division among Christians from the earliest times over Christ and the Trinity.

They used the very same scriptures and came up with different interpretations, as you know.

The Arians believed that Christ was more than man but less than God - they took, at one time almost two-thirds of all Christians into their heresy.

It was only after the Church herself held an Ecumenical Council and defined what the Bible teaches about Christ while establishing confessions of faith and the like that Arianism was defeated. The same is true of other heresies that cropped up as a result of someone's interpretation of the Bible that went against what the Church had always believed and interpreted.

And the Lutherans believed that if one got rid of the papal tradition and left ONLY the Bible then everyone would believe as they did.

And of course that was a mistake - Anabaptists were the first to disagree with the Lutherans, to their chagrin, and this is why these Bible-believing Christians went after the Anabaptists to slaughter them . . .

So my uneasiness with your question is really rooted in the idea, that seems to be where you are coming from, that the Bible can somehow be correctly interpreted apart from the Church's Tradition and teaching.

How and where in history has that ever been possible?

Alex

Dear Pani Rose,

Yes, but "Pani" can be used to refer to any married woman as well . . .

"Pani-Maty" is the term that designates a Presbytera - I don't know if a Deacon's wife has a title like that, but I wouldn't oppose any if there were!

You did a marvellous job above, Pani Rose - congratulations!

But, as you said yourself, it is the Church's tradition and prayer-life, as well as its teaching in the subsequent Councils that established ancient practice of the invocation of the Saints and devotion to Mary.

In the book, "A Protestant Pastor looks at Mary," Rev. Charles Dickson says that while we today assume the Protestant Reformers (and Shiloah is, I believe, a Protestant missionary which is why I bring this up) downplayed the role of the Virgin Mary in God's plan of salvation.

But, he says, on page 40, that "Zwingli defended the use of Ave Maria as a means of rightful praise to the Blessed Virgin, and Calvin affirmed, 'We cannot celebrate the blessings given us in Christ without commemorating at the same time, how high an honour God has granted to mary when He chose to make her the Mother of His only Son.'"

And Martin Luther, in his original writings, says the author, referred to Mary as "the workshop of God" and decried Protestant antagonism toward her as an offshoot of Church conflict.

Luther believed in the help of the Virgin Mary for all worthwhile endeavours. As he wrote in 1521, "May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song (the Magnificat) of hers."

"Not only did Luther believe Mary helped Christians who call on her for assistance, he also supported prayers to her . . . he wrote, 'O Blessed VIrgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate.'"

In his commentary on the Magnificat, Luther says, "The Virgin Mary means to say simply that her praise will be sung from one generation to another so that there will never be a time when she will not be praised!"

And he referred to her as "Queen of Heaven."

As this Protestant minister says, "Catholics, on the other hand, speak of the contextual sufficiency of the Scriptures (with respect to Marian dogmas) and point out that the Scriptures themselves represent theological interpretations of the community and that there can be no creation or interpretation of the Scriptures apart from the living community which is the Church . . . Devotion to Mary is widespread and ancient, as is belief in her role in salvation."

He also adds this: It cannot be ignored that Mariology in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions constitutes two-thirds of world Christendom, which creates a challenge that has to be answered by every new generation of children of the Reformation. Open-minded Christians of the Protestant tradition must ask themselves if it is reasonable to believe that throughout centuries of Christian history, two-thirds of the faithful have been misled by false doctrines and practices concerning the Mother of our Lord . . . One Lutheran leader reminds us, 'It is immature to say that everything we (Protestants) dislike in the history of Christianity is due to some outside influence, while what we approve of is the work of the Holy Spirit.'"

And finally, "Most Protestants have tended to emphasize only the divine nature (of Christ), thereby devaluating the human side, and therefore the precursor of the humanity of Christ, the Virgin Mary. The reformers assumed a wide gap between the natures of Christ (my question - a form of Nestorianism?) attributing the work of salvation to the divine alone and thereby emptying of value the huma action of the Word made flesh. In the process, the worship emphasis naturally followed by underlining the Atonement with relatively little attention given to the Incarnation."

Also, on page 53, Rev. Dickson says that "invocation of the Virgin Mary and other saints is, interestingly enough, not forbidden in some Protestant groups. For example, the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran Church states explicitly that such practices are neither forbidden nor required."

He also supports strongly the recitation of the Rosary for all Protestants - and there is a Methodist book on the Rosary by Rev. Neville Ward, "Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy" that is also excellent.

The Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of which I am a member, includes many Protestants who work in the area of ecumenism in this area of theology.

God bless,

Alex

Alex,
thanks for your kind cooperation and again the extensive explanations. Please do not stigmatize me as Lutheran. I am in love with the Orthodox Church and during my years with a Russian Orthodox community I never had this 'confrontation' with Marianism and the Latin church. Not even now at the Byzantine Catholic one I visit - for lack of the other in this area. I am blessed to be able to attend and participate. Also, I am fascinated by the traditional and patristic writings and teachings of the Church and consider them a tremendous help. And I am allowed to live and learn something new every day. That's Grace!

You have such a beautiful name - "Defender" .
In the old World the king used to be called Defender of the Faith - but not all of them were.

You are defending your Queen, as the knights did in the ancient kingdoms. I don't see anything wrong with that. It certainly made them more refined

Shiloah

It is customary to give a small thanks to the messanger.

thanks
-ray

Hey,

Y'all are all too kind. Thanks.

Lawrence,

I was caught breathless when I saw your post. I will let Fr. Deacon Stan's aunts too.


This was actually what I was looking for Ezkieal 44. It is used in the Liturgical worship of the Church. It is very clear on Mary's perpetual virginity.

Pani Rose