Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Anna Scott, Mar 29, 2012.
I agree. Appreciate your comment.
Beautifully said. I agree with every point.
I'm sure you will bring an interesting perspective to our discussions, having come from Eastern Orthodoxy.
Thanks for weighing in on your beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary.
I find it fascinating that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity exists given scripture... How would those who believe this doctrine rationalise this piece of scripture?
We understand it to mean that, in the period between conception and birth, they engaged in no relations. It doesn't necessarily imply that they did have relations at any time after this (which Matthew wouldn't have been privy to anyway).
Anna (and others)...
Please recommend a few references (books, brochures, and/or websites) on the Blessed Virgin Mary.
LOL obviously those that actually lived in that time must have been privy to something - maybe the fact that our Precious Saviour had brothers and sisters let him to believe that after they birth of our Lord Joseph and Mary did live as man and wife... Given that I would be inclined to take notice of what the scriptures say/imply then what someone else decreed many years later.
Given what is written in scripture what scripture would have the fathers of the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries have used to believe that our Blessed Mother did not engage in marital relations with her husband after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Well, one could consider that her other "children" are never named as hers. Why the silence? Scripture loves to list families and genealogies. Why does Jesus entrust her to John, and not to another? And where are they when she and the disciples are hiding in the upper room? Why do the other members of the family not seem to believe (or even get involved) until well after Pentecost? Yes, we see people described as brothers and sisters, but they're never identified as Mary's. Christ's relationship with them is notably different than his relationship with her.
I know what you're saying, and apart from other witnesses we might draw a certain conclusion. But since the children are not called hers, and because the tradition of her perpetual virginity is ancient and well-supported, I am quite satisfied with the idea that they are Joseph's. I'd also respectfully submit that those of us who hold this position are not sola scriptura but also accept Tradition's witness.
EDIT: I just realized that I said some of these things in an earlier post. It's easy to become mixed-up when dealing with multiple forums and long-running conversations. I'll also add that Gordon's position was mine when I was Presbyterian, so I understand the sentiments of those who hold it.
Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God: Yes
Perpetual Virginity: Yes
Immaculate Conception: Maybe
Her Place within the Communion of Saints: Yes
Requests for Her Intercession: Yes
Veneration: Yes, it's not worship.
Thanks for weighing in.
Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God: The Lord JESUS is eternal Word of God the Blessed, who took on our flesh in order to save us, so He was conceived in and born of Mary. Ontologically, that makes her His mother. It doesn't suggest that she somehow created God. What a silly objection! I'll say YES.
Perpetual Virginity: YES: because the Bible hints at it. I don't think it's essential to believe, though, as if she's being slandered otherwise. The virtue of virginity is good, and the virtue of bountiful motherhood is good as well.
Assumption: NEUTRAL: No evidence other than some pious myths, so it doesn't matter. Might have been; might not have been. Hardly affects us, whose Lord is risen and ascended Himself, alleluia.
Immaculate Conception: NO: All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God. If Christ needed a sinless Mother to be conceived sinless Himself, why not just make His Mother the saviour? He needs to receive His immaculate beauty from no one. She is the mother of the Divine Person's human nature, but not the Divine Person's divine NATURE.
Mediatrix: In the sense that all the saints mediate by praying for the world, YES. In the sense that Mary is somehow the Mediatrix that needs to take us to the Mediator, Who in turn takes us to the Father? Absolutely NO.
Co-Redemptrix: In the sense that without her there would be no incarnation, no cross, and no resurrection, then she worked with our redemption, YES. In the sense that she keeps somehow acting as a portal or door of divine grace for us, NO.
Her Place within the Communion of Saints: NEUTRAL YES We can be totally sure only that three Persons are in Heaven: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. For all the rest, there is only presumption. I should like to believe that as many people are in Heaven as possible, but sin still exists in our hearts. If we presume Mary or the Apostles are there, we constrain God and their free will.
Requests for Her Intercession: NO, because it presumes 1. that we can commune with the physically dead even though their only mode of communiciation was via the senses, which are now degraded - 2. because it presumes that they are not already praying and interceding for us! What an insult, to ask for something that's already being given!
Veneration: If we venerate her good, holy, pious, and humble memory in submitting to God's plan, and being His handmaiden, YES. If we venerate her actively by speaking to her or honouring her to 'her face' (?), then NO.
Other Beliefs/Doctrines: Greatest woman who ever lived.[/quote]
While i am not exactly sure what my exact beliefs are regarding Mary i will say what i lean towards . I lean towards the view that Mary was blessed in a very special way by God but that her conception was not immaculate , that her life was not sinsless . I dont believe that it is really so important as to whether or not she remained a virgin or had other children . It makes great theological discussion don't misunderstand but when Christians do in fact cross swords over it then that is a pity to say the least .
Like I said earlier it is a big stumbling point for me. While Jesus is the total focus point of the Mass, Mary seems to have overtaken Jesus as the focus of prayer. That is why my journey toward the Anglican Church. There is something about Mary but, the RCC has made her into the focus of the Church.
I concur with your list except for Co-Redemptrix. The Roman Catholics tried pursuing this angle years ago. But I don't believe that Mary would see herself in that role.
Thank you for your comments; and welcome to the Anglican Forums!
We might as well make this a thread "all about Mary". It's funny that such a great saint should be so placed above all the others by Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and a few Anglicans. Looks like she'd prefer silence and humility about her person rather than all the stuff that's been going on around her. As a male who believes in chivalry, I tend to think women would be embarrassed by so much over-the-top attention and controversy.
I am wondering what you, Anna, or anyone feels about shrines like this, in Catholicism:
The 'gift shop' is called "Flores Mariae", flowers of Mary - the restaurant is called "Culina Mariana", the Marian Kitchen. The church of the pilgrimage site has the famous tilma image from Guadalupe, which is on eye-level, whereas the crucifix is far above. You might argue that Mary's the first one you see when you enter, unless your head is tilted up.
Note that there are other things in their mission statement, such as providing west to the weary, educating adults about their faith, and presenting God in the tabernacle, but the events related to Mary come first and foremost.
Anglo-Catholics I've met are sometimes loathe to support such things, and they shudder at the length to which other Catholics go to promote this devotion. Others, such as the Walsingham pilgrims, would probably love this, wouldn't they?
It's a lovely church they've built, though it apparently cost 25 million dollars for the entire compound. That's probably a tad much just to honour poor little humble Mary, in my opinion...
Wondering how the new evangelisation (i.e. getting Europeans and North Americans back to the faith) is served by this.
The thread question is for Anglicans:
If you want to discuss what Catholics in Communion with Rome believe about the Blessed Virgin Mary, please start a new thread.
Anna, I wanted to know what you (an Anglican!) and others (Anglicans) think of the shrine, or even naming churches after Mary.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough...
I was thinking about the doctrine of the immaculate conception recently. I think I am in the camp that it was unnecessary for her to be born sinless to avoid spreading original sin to Jesus. The holy spirit either filtered the sin aspect of her human nature when she conceived, or as some believed, she was sanctified when the holy spirit came over her to cleanse her of her sins and conceive Jesus which means she was purified and lived a Godly life afterwards. The idea of her needing to be born sinless to be the New Eve is a distortion. Eve brought death through disobedience where as through Mary it was through her obedience to take up God's calling for her. Also, they say that, since the gospels say 'all generations shall call me blessed', it was appropriate to think that the holiness she received was either exceptional (in the case that one believes the immaculate conception was only during her period with Jesus and that she may have still sinned occasionally afterwards) or perfect obedience. Also, I think the reason the gospels do not mention Mary much at all is an acknowledgement that perhaps she did become exceptionally holy, but at the same time it was not emphasized because it would be a distraction to the emphasis on Christ, since we already see such veneration given in Luke 11:27 'Blessed is the womb that bore you' which Jesus, in a sense, lightly rebukes. This all fits perfectly with the idea of acknowledging her obedience and honor while not making it into an object of idolatry, and not having to resort to playing gymnastics around the clear statement that 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God'.
The gospels do cover things up to an extent. When Peter is referred to anonymously as the one who attacked a guard with a sword, and then later referred to by name when he denies Jesus in the same gospel, is done deliberately to protect people or prevent misconceptions.
Mary as Theotokos or Mother of God
The idea of Theotokos is that Mary is mother of the full god Man, Jesus Christ. Not just his humanity. The other view is that she is just the mother of Jesus's humanity. That would separate Christ's divinity and humanity. Since God is perfect, can not change we can not separate those things.
Yes. That is a easy one.
The assumption or the dormition of Mary is a very old tradition, so i bought stock that there is some sort of Kernel of truth to it. Also we have bodies that claim to belong to almost all the other important figures in the Gospel, you would think somewhere someone would have preserved her.
Was Mary born with out original sin and did she avoid personal sin as defined in V1? Nope. Mary was chosen by God, she is blessed cause she said yes and gave birth to Christ.
I am not a roman catholic and had a lot of issues with this when I was
Her Place within the Communion of Saints
She is a saint, so we do ask for her prayers and intercessions. Our parish has about 2 or 3 services a year where we petition the saints.