Mary the Queen of Heaven

[TER]

He doesn't need to. He provides us with evidence for what views existed in his time. If there had been a unified authoritative tradition about what happened to Mary's body passed down through the generations from the apostles, he could not have written these words.

You call it a truth of the Church. But the question is, is it really a truth of the Church? When an individual human being makes such a claim, we can test it by historical inquiry. In the case of the assumption of Mary, it doesn't pass the test. As you say, the truths of the Church don't hinge on one man's opinion.

Epiphanius can only express what he know from his own experience with the limited resources and sources he had. He does not speak for the Church.

I call it a truth of the Church because it is what the Church proclaims to be the truth. Does this require faith? Yes, much of the Christian faith does. I understand that I cannot give you the proof that you want which would be historical documents which clearly and unequivically express these claims. I am okay with that. After all, even if we did have such documents, we might still be arguing about the interpretations of it! After all, we argue on much about what is written in the NT itself regarding the Eucharist and the priesthood.

The Assumption of Mary does not pass your test. It passes my test which is one of obedience to the Church which knows better than any one man and much better than me.

 

[TER]

That is also clearly not true. The treasuring of relics from the people you refer to as saints began in the late second century. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars of Church history will back me up on this too.

We have the relics of the Apostles. Are they not from the first century?

 

[TER]

And it does, doesn't it?

It expresses what I have said above, that those who are looking for written direct historical proofs will not find it. But an argument of silence is not definitive proof.

 

[erowe1]

It expresses what I have said above, that those who are looking for written direct historical proofs will not find it. But an argument of silence is not definitive proof.

My comment wasn't about what you said above. It was about the belief in the assumption of Mary. The book confirms my claim that this belief was not held by the earliest Christians. Does it not?

I am not talking about an argument from silence. I am talking about an argument based on an objective evaluation of all available evidence.

 

[erowe1]

We have the relics of the Apostles. Are they not from the first century?

We have human beings from many centuries later than the first century claiming that various things are relics from the apostles (as well as multiple different heads of John the Baptist). We have the ability to test these claims by historical inquiry, considering all available evidence. When we do, we find that none of these claims are true.

No, we have no such relics from the first century.

 

[TER]

My comment wasn't about what you said above. It was about the belief in the assumption of Mary. The book confirms my claim that this belief was not held by the earliest Christians. Does it not?

I am not talking about an argument from silence. I am talking about an argument based on an objective evaluation of all available evidence.

And I am saying that on all the available evidence, there seems to be silence on the issue, which is not proof, though that may be enough proof for you.

 

[TER]

No, we have no such relics from the first century.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[erowe1]

And I am saying that on all the available evidence, there seems to be silence on the issue

I already showed you proof that this is false.

Speaking of arguments from silence. It's rather conspicuous that you're not answering my question about what the book that you claim to have read says about the matter.

 

[TER]

I already showed you proof that this is false.

I am sorry, but you have not proved this to be false. You have proved that according to your standards, it is false. However, an argument of silence is not definitive proof, neither scientifically or otherwise.

The Assumption of Mary is something that requires faith, just as with much of the teachings and traditions of the Church. You need more proof. Fine, I get that. I don't and am quiet happy. Truths are not limited to human expressions or study but also through divine revelation, and I already explained even if the entire world forgot what happened to the Virgin Mary, the Church through the Holy Spirit has revealed it. This is the will of God. Why? I dont know. Maybe to prevent confusion in the early life of the Church when other things were required. You are seeing truths through your lens and your evaluation of the available evidence. I am stating I don't have all the evidence and my basis and foundation for the truth is not on my own mind but through the Church.

 

[Kevin007]

Epiphanius can only express what he know from his own experience with the limited resources and sources he had. He does not speak for the Church.

I call it a truth of the Church because it is what the Church proclaims to be the truth. Does this require faith? Yes, much of the Christian faith does. I understand that I cannot give you the proof that you want which would be historical documents which clearly and unequivically express these claims. I am okay with that. After all, even if we did have such documents, we might still be arguing about the interpretations of it! After all, we argue on much about what is written in the NT itself regarding the Eucharist and the priesthood.

The Assumption of Mary does not pass your test. It passes my test which is one of obedience to the Church which knows better than any one man and much better than me.

the bible is silent about Mary's death. In 1950, Pope Pius XII introduced another dogma as a consequence of the previous dogmas--they called it The Assumption of Mary into Heaven, body and soul. The RCC is divided regarding the details of Mary’s ascension into heaven. They don’t agree whether she died first or was living and taken up. The Bible is silent about it. Mary most likely died like everyone else. You cannot read something into the text because you want to make a dogma about it.

 

[Kevin007]

Mary was not sinless; she needed a Savior just like the rest of humanity. The biblical witness from the words of the historical Mary herself testify her need for a Savior. Mary was a Jew was bounded by the Law to make the rituals signifying her guilt and state as a sinner. The bible states this;

[h=1]Romans 3:10-12- New International Version (NIV)[/h] [SUP]10 [/SUP]As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[SUP][a]


and;

Isaiah 53:6-


[/SUP](NIV)

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

 

[lilymc]

Mary was not sinless; she needed a Savior just like the rest of humanity. The biblical witness from the words of the historical Mary herself testify her need for a Savior. Mary was a Jew was bounded by the Law to make the rituals signifying her guilt and state as a sinner. The bible states this;

[h=1]Romans 3:10-12- New International Version (NIV)[/h] [SUP]10 [/SUP]As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[SUP][a]


and;

Isaiah 53:6-


[/SUP](NIV)

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Exactly!

I honestly don't get this preoccupation with Mary some people have. It truly baffles me.

She was not sinless. Only God is sinless.

She did not remain a virgin her entire life. (And there's nothing wrong with that. God created marriage, marriage and having children is a good thing. A blessing!)

I think it's sad that we are even having this debate.

There is no need to elevate Mary to a near deity. Isn't God enough???

/rant

 

[Terry1]

Exactly!

I honestly don't get this preoccupation with Mary some people have. It truly baffles me.

She was not sinless. Only God is sinless.

She did not remain a virgin her entire life. (And there's nothing wrong with that. God created marriage, marriage and having children is a good thing. A blessing!)

I think it's sad that we are even having this debate.

There is no need to elevate Mary to a near deity. Isn't God enough???

/rant

Lily, I actually agree with you on some things regarding Mary. In the Gospels where Mary entered their home town where Jesus grew up, the neighbors and people that knew them were questioning each other about Jesus. They remark about knowing Jesus and his brothers and sisters, the children of Mary. Now this is where I find it hard to agree with the Catholic interpretation of this portion of the Gospel, because they believe that this is giving reference to "brothers and sisters" as in "brethren of the Lord". This does not seem to fit with scripture being that these old friends and neighbors were referring to the family of Joseph and Mary because they knew them growing up together. This is the reason that Jesus had such a hard time witnessing to the people that knew him as a child in his own home town and why He had to leave them in the first place.

I also have a hard time believing that Mary was always a virgin because of these scriptures and knowing that at that time in history--the more children one had--the more blessed they were. It's difficult to imagine that God would deny Mary and Joseph this blessing given the level of their faith to God. These scriptures also indicate that Jesus was first born of many other brothers and sisters of Mary and Joseph. So--because of this that seems to reconcile with with the rest of scripture, I then must disagree that Mary was always a virgin and that she had no other children.

Now to make peace with my fellow EOC brethren here, I must also add that although I do not share this same belief about Mary always being a virgin, this to me is not detrimental to ones salvation with regard to whether she was or was not always a virgin. The EOC also does not share the same belief with the Roman Catholics that Mary was without original sin--(Immaculate conception). The EOC does not believe in the Papacy or that the Pope is the head of the church. They believe that Jesus is the head of the church--hence the *split* between these two Catholic churches, although they still consider themselves "sister churches".

So why do I follow the EOC then? Because what I saw within their teaching are the core precepts and values that are most important regarding our salvation. First being that we are not "once saved always saved" and that repentance is required throughout our entire lives to the very end of it because it's most certainly possible to fall away from grace and faith. Jesus is the head of their church--not the Pope. I agree that the Mariology doctrine is a hindrance, but not detrimental to one's salvation. We are told in the Gospels and the Ten Commandments not to bow down and worship other gods or deities because God is a jealous God. So then, even with full understanding that they are not worshiping these saints or Mary-- would using Mary or the departed saints as intercessors be an unpardonable sin? No--I don't believe so because God knows their hearts and intentions, but we are also warned about praying to the departed spirits of the saints because this could be very dangerous not fully comprehending which spirits we could be contacting being in our human fallible state. This would not be something that I personally would practice at all being my current understanding of the possible outcome and effects that could come from this practice.

The word of God also tells us that in these end times--satan will use earthly icons as signs and miracles to deceive mankind and we are to be ever watchful for these particular events.

So then you're probably wondering why I would subscribe to a church that practiced these things and I would tell you because what the EOC has preserved is the core biblical teaching that saves and that is that we are not once saved always saved and that it's possible to fall away from grace and faith and that we are tested to the very end our lives until our deaths. Only then will God either choose us or not because of our life, faith and witness here on this earth. This is paramount and huge and the key to our salvation.

We have to remember that this church is ancient and this teaching has never once changed despite other practices that I believe do not coincide with the Gospel since the time of the apostles. As the church has adopted using saints and Mary as intercessors--this was not always practiced in the earliest church history at Ephesus. We must never toss the baby out with the bathwater when discerning and rightly dividing the word of God. The apostle Paul never used the departed saints as intercessors that I'm aware of biblically and John of revelation was rebuked by the angel of God when John attempted to do the same as "bowing down" to the angel. The angel corrected John and told him "not to do this" because like himself, he was only a brethren in the Lord and a messenger of God. Again--I do not believe this is an unpardonable sin, but we are clearly instructed not to use the angels or the departed as intercessors for our own spiritual well-being because it is dangerous not always being able to discern the nature of the spirits in our human state.

Intercessory prayers as I understand it biblically is used amongst the living. We can do this for one another when one is weak in the Lord needing intercession and prayer. We are also instructed by the word of God not to disturb those "who sleep" or those who have already departed this life. There is also an example in the bible where this was done by the witch of Endor to summon the prophet Samuel with very bad results.

I realize that my EOC brethren will disagree with me on this, but like I said--I do not believe this practice is detrimental to our eternal souls--God knowing their hearts and able to make them stand in light of this truth as John of Revelation made this very same mistake and was rebuked for it.

God calls us all to be lights in this world and to be spiritually knowledgeable and aware. We must make sure that what we do reconciles with the word of God always--no matter what we've been previously taught or how much or how long we have believed something else.

Peace and love to all of my brothers and sister in Christ.

 

[Terry1]

I also wanted to add to the above by saying that we all won't always agree 100 percent on every jot and tittle of the word of God. The Apostle Paul told us that we would all see through the glass darkly in this life and that more is given to those who sincerely seek it out and more often. There are people with varying levels of faith and God rewards those who seek honestly, diligently and often with prayer and trust in Him.

What I have come to know and to see spiritually are my personal convictions having studied and experienced many different faiths and denominations of the Christian faith. Having been a follower of the protestant churches for so long, I failed to see and to make the connections that I have most recently in my journey in faith. Here are some of my observations if you're interested.

Most protestant churches have been infected with Calvinism and Lutheranism that teach such things as that there is no need for repentance after a one time confession of faith and that they are once saved always saved--being a part of the perseverance of the saints and Calvin's doctrinal teaching. Some protestant churches teach legalism and that they must follow the Jewish traditions of dead works also. Some protestant churches teach differing levels of the TULIP doctrine to one degree or another as in total depravity and irresistible grace. None of these teachings reconcile with the gospel of Jesus Christ and are--IMO--very dangerous and detrimental to the soul being that they can place people in a state of spiritual complacency leaving them to believe they can live any way they choose and still be saved after a one time confession of belief.

Most--if not all protestant churches are infected with these teachings that directly impair or annihilate the chance of salvation and are indeed very dangerous to the eternal soul.

Comparing this to what the EOC Catholics believe and some of their practices I don't agree with, but are not as dangerous to the eternal soul as what the protestants teach. Because the EOC Catholics have preserved the very key to salvation in their teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that is that our salvation in this life is never secured by a one time confession of faith. The EOC teaches that we must live Godly lives and that we must keep our Christian traditions and hold fast to doing the good works that Jesus has called us to do in faith and full belief. And reconciles with all of the apostle words such as James and Paul who taught us that faith without our good works to back that up is dead and we have no faith at all at that point and can fall from grace as Paul tells us.

For these reasons--I understand that there is no perfect earthly church, but the core message of what actually can save mankind has been preserved by the EOC--despite the Mariology and using the departed saints as intercessors that I don't agree with--they have preserved the core biblical message that saves mankind.

 

[TER]

Exactly!

I honestly don't get this preoccupation with Mary some people have. It truly baffles me.

What is baffling to me is why some people who call themselves Christians are scandalized by people honoring the Mother of Christ. Even Luther, will all his errors, was correct in many parts, and this includes in his agreement with the patristic witness that the Theotokos was ever-virgin and that she is to be honored above all saints.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.
(Sermon, September 1, 1522)

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough.
(Sermon, Christmas, 1531)

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.
(Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537)

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.
(Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521)

​

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother.
(Sermon, Christmas, 1529)

​

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin"
(Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527)

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.
(Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522)

​

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)}

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
​

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)}

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .​

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)}

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
​

{Pelikan, ibid., v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her."
​

(Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968)

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."​

{Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)}

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
​

(On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees."
​

She was not sinless. Only God is sinless.

She was not sinless by nature, for only Christ is sinless by nature. She was made sinless by grace, for having been overcome by the grace of the Holy Spirit Who purified her, she became a sinless tabernacle to give flesh and birth to the Sinless Christ.

She did not remain a virgin her entire life. (And there's nothing wrong with that. God created marriage, marriage and having children is a good thing. A blessing!)

There is nothing wrong with having children, but the Virgin Mary only had one. She remained a virgin her whole life, that is the testimony of the saints and the Church, until it was changed by the later Reformers. Christ's brothers were cousins and half brothers/sisters which Joseph had in a prior marriage (he was an older widow when he was betrothed to the Virgin Mary). To think that Joseph would have sex with Mary after he knew she gave birth to the Son of God is impious. People live lives in total virginity now, for example in monasteries, and the Mother of God who gave Her flesh to our God could not keep her self pure and inviolate? Why? Because you misinterpret the Scriptures against the testimony of the 2000 year old Church? Do you know better then the saints and martyrs of the first centuries how the term 'brothers, applied to Christ? Where do you get this confidence? How are you so right and every one is so wrong? I personally would not feel comfortable in such a position, knowing how much of a sinner I am. Are you perhaps sinless that you do not need the testimony of the earliest Saints? I dare not do such a thing.

Mary is All Holy by the Grace of God. In the Holy Spirit, she is Ever-pure, having received the full healing made possible by Christ, which we will not know until the Last Day. For that reason we glorify and honor the Mother of God! For she is what we aspire to be! To be Christ-bearers in imitation of her, through living holy lives of humility and obedience to God's will. We too share in the same glory as she does when we become filled by the Holy Spirit of God. Let us learn from those who too have lived such holy lives, namely the saints, and learn what obedience to God is and true faith. That way we too might grow in light and life and in the likeness of Jesus Christ, entering into the communion of His saints and the future resurrection and life in the Kingdom of God.

I think it's sad that we are even having this debate.

What is sad is that people are scandalized by the Theotokos and her important role in our salvation.

There is no need to elevate Mary to a near deity. Isn't God enough???

She is near deity because of the Holy Spirit in her, but she is not God, and while she was born a daughter of Eve and became the Mother of God, she too died, for Christ alone was born without any sin and only by Christ was the curse of Adam reversed. Christ is the Savior to the Theotokos just as He is the Savior to all men. The Theotokos has received the great honor of ascending bodily to heaven after her death due to the special dispensation and love of God. While Christ is the Firstfruits of our future resurrected nature, the Theotokos by special dispensation of God is living that future life now in the Kingdom.

How is this possible? By the Almighty God!

 

[lilymc]

Lily, I actually agree with you on some things regarding Mary. In the Gospels where Mary entered their home town where Jesus grew up, the neighbors and people that knew them were questioning each other about Jesus. They remark about knowing Jesus and his brothers and sisters, the children of Mary. Now this is where I find it hard to agree with the Catholic interpretation of this portion of the Gospel, because they believe that this is giving reference to "brothers and sisters" as in "brethren of the Lord". This does not seem to fit with scripture being that these old friends and neighbors were referring to the family of Joseph and Mary because they knew them growing up together. This is the reason that Jesus had such a hard time witnessing to the people that knew him as a child in his own home town and why He had to leave them in the first place.

I also have a hard time believing that Mary was always a virgin because of these scriptures and knowing that at that time in history--the more children one had--the more blessed they were. It's difficult to imagine that God would deny Mary and Joseph this blessing given the level of their faith to God. These scriptures also indicate that Jesus was first born of many other brothers and sisters of Mary and Joseph. So--because of this that seems to reconcile with with the rest of scripture, I then must disagree that Mary was always a virgin and that she had no other children.

Now to make peace with my fellow EOC brethren here, I must also add that although I do not share this same belief about Mary always being a virgin, this to me is not detrimental to ones salvation with regard to whether she was or was not always a virgin. The EOC also does not share the same belief with the Roman Catholics that Mary was without original sin--(Immaculate conception). The EOC does not believe in the Papacy or that the Pope is the head of the church. They believe that Jesus is the head of the church--hence the *split* between these two Catholic churches, although they still consider themselves "sister churches".

So why do I follow the EOC then? Because what I saw within their teaching are the core precepts and values that are most important regarding our salvation. First being that we are not "once saved always saved" and that repentance is required throughout our entire lives to the very end of it because it's most certainly possible to fall away from grace and faith. Jesus is the head of their church--not the Pope. I agree that the Mariology doctrine is a hindrance, but not detrimental to one's salvation. We are told in the Gospels and the Ten Commandments not to bow down and worship other gods or deities because God is a jealous God. So then, even with full understanding that they are not worshiping these saints or Mary-- would using Mary or the departed saints as intercessors be an unpardonable sin? No--I don't believe so because God knows their hearts and intentions, but we are also warned about praying to the departed spirits of the saints because this could be very dangerous not fully comprehending which spirits we could be contacting being in our human fallible state. This would not be something that I personally would practice at all being my current understanding of the possible outcome and effects that could come from this practice.

The word of God also tells us that in these end times--satan will use earthly icons as signs and miracles to deceive mankind and we are to be ever watchful for these particular events.

So then you're probably wondering why I would subscribe to a church that practiced these things and I would tell you because what the EOC has preserved is the core biblical teaching that saves and that is that we are not once saved always saved and that it's possible to fall away from grace and faith and that we are tested to the very end our lives until our deaths. Only then will God either choose us or not because of our life, faith and witness here on this earth. This is paramount and huge and the key to our salvation.

We have to remember that this church is ancient and this teaching has never once changed despite other practices that I believe do not coincide with the Gospel since the time of the apostles. As the church has adopted using saints and Mary as intercessors--this was not always practiced in the earliest church history at Ephesus. We must never toss the baby out with the bathwater when discerning and rightly dividing the word of God. The apostle Paul never used the departed saints as intercessors that I'm aware of biblically and John of revelation was rebuked by the angel of God when John attempted to do the same as "bowing down" to the angel. The angel corrected John and told him "not to do this" because like himself, he was only a brethren in the Lord and a messenger of God. Again--I do not believe this is an unpardonable sin, but we are clearly instructed not to use the angels or the departed as intercessors for our own spiritual well-being because it is dangerous not always being able to discern the nature of the spirits in our human state.

Intercessory prayers as I understand it biblically is used amongst the living. We can do this for one another when one is weak in the Lord needing intercession and prayer. We are also instructed by the word of God not to disturb those "who sleep" or those who have already departed this life. There is also an example in the bible where this was done by the witch of Endor to summon the prophet Samuel with very bad results.

I realize that my EOC brethren will disagree with me on this, but like I said--I do not believe this practice is detrimental to our eternal souls--God knowing their hearts and able to make them stand in light of this truth as John of Revelation made this very same mistake and was rebuked for it.

God calls us all to be lights in this world and to be spiritually knowledgeable and aware. We must make sure that what we do reconciles with the word of God always--no matter what we've been previously taught or how much or how long we have believed something else.

Peace and love to all of my brothers and sister in Christ.

Hi Terry, thanks for your thoughts and for the detailed post.

I want to reply, but I have to get going now, so I'll try to get back to this thread later. But I appreciate you taking the time to clarify what you believe. Blessings!

 

[TER]

Hi Terry, thanks for your thoughts and for the detailed post.

I want to reply, but I have to get going now, so I'll try to get back to this thread later. But I appreciate you taking the time to clarify what you believe. Blessings!

We should glorify God Who is bringing Terry back to her roots. For He tugs at the heart and reveals Himself within the soul of the honest seeker. This is the image of Martha's sister Mary, who hears the words and listens and whose life is centered solely upon the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For when the person truly humbles themselves before the Lord, then true grace is experienced. Then do the depths and weights of the truth become more clearly understood and known. Then the fullness of the story of Christ's work in this world begins to be perceived. Not apart from history and time, but in it and through it. Not disconnected but in full mystical communion, in and by the divine energies of God. (These are heavy theological points, but they are the teachings of the Church).

Terry is looking for the fuller life in Christ, in the image of Lazarus' sister Mary, and as Christ said 'it shall not be taken away from her'. In time and through prayer, she too will be received into the same Church of St. Mary of Bethany. To the glory of Christ our God!

 

[Terry1]

We should glorify God Who is bringing Terry back to her roots. For He tugs at the heart and reveals Himself within the soul of the honest seeker. This is the image of Martha's sister Mary, who hears the words and listens and whose life is centered solely upon the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For when the person truly humbles themselves before the Lord, then true grace is experienced. Then do the depths and weights of the truth become more clearly understood and known. Then the fullness of the story of Christ's work in this world begins to be perceived. Not apart from history and time, but in it and through it. Not disconnected but in full mystical communion, in and by the divine energies of God. (These are heavy theological points, but they are the teachings of the Church).

Terry is looking for the fuller life in Christ, in the image of Lazarus' sister Mary, and as Christ said 'it shall not be taken away from her'. In time and through prayer, she too will be received into the same Church of St. Mary of Bethany. To the glory of Christ our God!

Amen brother TER! I fully respect and honor the Mother Mary for her contribution that is beyond compare in the history of this world. She deserves the title Queen of Heaven! As all of the beloved departed saints of God who gave their lives and testimony to the witness of Christ. I'm not going anywhere, but back to my roots in the EOC. There is no stronger earthly witness with the true message of salvation other than the EOC--and that is what I will cling to.

 

[erowe1]

In time and through prayer, she too will be received into the same Church of St. Mary of Bethany. To the glory of Christ our God!

If she has faith in Christ, then she is already a part of His Church, as all who have faith in him are.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What is baffling to me is why some people who call themselves Christians are scandalized by people honoring the Mother of Christ. Even Luther, will all his errors, was correct in many parts, and this includes in his agreement with the patristic witness that the Theotokos was ever-virgin and that she is to be honored above all saints.

+rep for the whole post