Orthodoxy 101 - The Virgin Mary and the Saints
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- Just What Does the Orthodox Church Teach About the Virgin Mary and the Saints? Most Protestant Christians have difficulty in accepting the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the Virgin Mary and the saints, and the veneration accorded by Orthodox Christians to them. What is the basis of the Orthodox Christian teaching of the Ever-Virgin Mary? Who are the saints? Why do Orthodox Christians pray at times to the Saints and Mary? Answers to these and other questions will be given.
First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?
I’m Orthodox and completely agree with you
Plavastrunfeta B they do not mediate they intercede for us they are two very different things. Mary Can pray for us she and the saints do not mediate for us.
PRAYER.
It is truly proper to glorify You, O Theotokos, the Ever blessed, immaculate and the Mother of God. More honourable than the Cherubim and beyond compare, more glorious than the Seraphim, who a Virgin gave birth to God the Word, You, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.
@Bin Sam Jesus is God but he is the second person of the Godhead. See God is three in one, Father Son and Holy Spirit. In order for Mary to be the mother of God she has to be the mother of both the Father and the holy spirit but she is not, she is only the mother of God the Son the mother of Christ
@@viviennebaptiste There are no parts in God, Jesus is the second person but He is fully God. Mary is the mother of a divine person with 2 natures. Therefore, she is the mother of God.
@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão
I think the Scriptures were careful to call Mary, mother of Jesus. This is what the Holy Spirit inspired to be written. It's also unnecessary to believe that Mary is ever virgin. She was a married woman and she would not have violated her marriage obligations simply because tradition would come along later with ideas that it was not proper for her to bear other Children simply because she gave birth to God first. Because this is the only logic you get from this tradition but there is no evidence that God put that burden on Joseph and Mary to bless their marriage without the gift of marriage union. It do not make sense really.
@@viviennebaptiste you’re basically saying Jesus isn’t God. They are all divine. She didn’t create his divinity but gave birth to his united divine and human nature. You are speaking of a heresy that was rebuked by saints during the ecumenical councils
@@Nolongeraslave oh there’s a Bible verse foreshadowing st. Mary
I don't have a problem with most Mariological beliefs in the orthodox church. The only problem I have and probably the biggest problem I see in the theology of catholics and orthodox is DEVOTION and ADORATION to her. I capitalize these words to emphasize them. Her or Any saint. But I do love her and her and she does deserve honor. But The only one I adore Is christ. and he alone is to whom my devotion belongs. what are your thoughts on the topic?
Mt 12:46 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."
Mk 3:31 And His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him, and called Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 And answering them, He *said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" 34 And looking about on those who were sitting around Him, He *said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother."
Lk 8:19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You." 21 But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."
God explicitly commands against worshipping Him through created things. We are not to bow down and worship the form of anything in heaven above or earth below (Exodus 20:4-5). Romans 1:25 could not be more clear: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.” Yes, God has created wonderful and amazing things. Yes, Mary was a godly woman who is worthy of our respect. No, we absolutely are not to worship God “vicariously” by praising things (or people) He has created. Doing so is blatant idolatry.
Father, bless! Dear Father, thank you for your wonderful teachings. I wish there were more!
Your videos have helped me tremendously on my journey into the Orthodox Church. That book looks excellent BTW - it's now sitting in my Amazon Wishlist.
Yet, his priest is wrong regarding Joseph! Joseph was not a widower, nor did Joseph have any biological children. Joseph and Mary were both ever virgin. God bless you!
Dear father,
I've been a Roman Catholic since 1991. Roman Catholic never believe that Virgin Mary never die. She died but resurrected with her body. We are the same belief as Orthodox in this point.
Anyway, I'm now serious considering to convert to Greek Orthodox because I consider Orthodox belief is much purer and the Orthodox church is much "cleaner" than Roman Catholic.
Having said that, I will also remind you, as I said in the video, the ONLY dogmatic statement about the Mother of the God is in relation to the virgin birth and that she bore God. Being fair, you being a Calvanist and me being Orthodox, I wouldn't expect us to agree on this question, but I can't allow history to be misrepresented.
There are many ancient Churches that are not in Communion with the original Orthodox Chrsitian Church. Sometime, these Churchs had political difference, and other times these Churches had theological differences. Since I do serve on any Orthodox-Syriac Church Dialogue Committee, I cannot speak to where the two Churches currently view their relationship. I DO know, however, that many ancient schims are in the process of being resolved as we discover our ancient difference were not about theology.
A LOT of problems with his arguments -
1. Christ was the firstborn of Joseph. The Bible itself says so. Then how come Joseph had other children BEFORE him from his earlier marriage? He must have had them with Mary only.
2. By virgin, why does it have to be always in a sexual context? Virgin also means pure, unblemished or un-corrupted. That's why a lot of travellers to uncharted lands have used the word "Virgin" to denote the in-corrupted state of the newly discovered land. The same logic can be applied to Mary too≥ She was virgin, incorruptible in the soul.
The questions you raise had been all discussed in the early councils of the church, especially the question of the title Virgin Mary.
1. Where did you get this information from? It's not in the bible. Nowhere in the bible says Joseph had an earlier marriage. If you say that, the bible says Jesus's brothers came to see him, we have a problem there. In our eastern culture ( I'm a Syrian Christian), we call our cousins and close relatives as brothers. In the Greek scriptures, the word used for brothers is in a broad sense. The apostles and the early fathers knew that Jesus was the only son of Mary and Joseph and that's what the church still believe in.
2. This is a fact that the apostles and the church fathers followed through the centuries. I get your point in how it could mean, but the tradition of the apostles have always said that Blessed Mary was ever Virgin. Mary was the vessel that held God, just like the Ark of the Covenant. And like the Ark of the Covenant was kept pure, Mary was made pure by God with no blemish, in body and soul.
1. Bible says Jesus was HER firstborn... check back in Matthew 1,15...
2. In the same verse Bible says she was sexually a virgin.
Wow ! Thank you for this enlightenment!!!!!!!! God bless you!!!!!
18:36 We are all saints, yes ☦️
Wonderful and Biblical teachings of the Church, from the beginning! Blessings to all mankind!
The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that our Blessed Mother didn´t die, it actually leaves the issue open. The dogma of the Assumption states literally: " that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The fact that she was conceived without sin (immaculate conception) does not imply that she didn´t die: Jesus was without sin and yet he most certainly died.
As I have already addressed this rebuttal, I will only ADD that Jesus was executed as a necessity of His lack of sin. Death is the wages of Sin. If Mary died she sinned, BUT the Immaculate Conception Doctrine does not allow for her sin. THUS either she couldn't die, or she sinned and she was not immaculate from conception. This is why this issue is a GREAT variance between our Churches.
Fr Athanasios C Haros Gn 2,17 is the biblical passage that links sin and death. But it doesn´t prove that it is reffering to a physical death. The term death in the Bible is also used as the loss of the supernatural life (Lk 15,24). The sense in wich the term is used in Gn 2,17 is thus not evident, if it is not evident then your comment "if Mary died she sinned" is not evident. It could mean that since Mary never sinned she never lost the supernatural life,(I insist the Catholic Church remains silent regarding a physical death of Mary and most catholics including myself lean to believe she did physically died) The doctrine of the immaculate conception states that Mary from the moment of her conception was full of grace, in friendship with God. Do the orthodox have a problem with this way of expressing the immaculate conception? Or do you believe that Mary was not full of grace from her conception and that it came a time when she was filled with the sanctifying grace?. By the way, does the orthodox church believe that Mary ever sinned? Because she died thus by your own words she sinned. I am a little bit confused here. If the death referred to in Gn 2,17 means actually a physical death I do not understand why an execution may be an exception (as in the case of Christ), I do not understand why is it to be understand that someone without sin can´t die but can be killed (what is the basis for such distinction?)
The Church teaches that she was purified by the Holy Spirit at the conception of Christ (just celebrated yesterday) and up that point was no different ontologically as any other human. Keep in mind, according to Orthodox teaching the "stain" of original sin is the "proclivity toward sin" not the guilt of Adam. It was JUST the fact that Christ was sinless that required the execution, thus "fooling" the devil into believing he was victorious. It is impossible for God to remain dead as He is the author of life. This is the mystery which is the Resurrection.
Fr Athanasios C Haros We are getting closer at understanding each others churches position. I have a few questions: If Mary was purified by the Holy Spirit at Jesus´conception and the angel Gabriel called her "full of grace" before Jesus´conception. What does "full of grace" mean according to orthodoxy? If the original sin is just a "proclivity toward sin", what does baptism do to an infant? We believe that the proclivity toward sin remains even after baptism, but with baptism you receive the sanctifying grace you are deprived of because of the original sin. The guilt of Adam is to be understood, not as a personal guilt (as in my own personal sins), but as the fact that we lost the birth right to sanctifying grace. We believe Jesus is God and we believe he really died, if you agree with this last statement discussion is over regarding the christological issue, but I am not sure we are on the same page regarding this.
At Baptism, we are joined to Christ. We die and are reborn united to Him. Grace means gift. We receive God's grace at our baptism, in the Eucharist, and at EVERY sacrament of the Church. As for Mary, maybe we should note the Orthodox Church doesn't dwell upon "moments" things take place. Gabriel also said, "The Lord is with you," but she had not yet consented to His conception. As you state, the Roman Catholic Church "leaves open" the question of her death, which the Orthodox Church does not. It is not a matter of understand each other's Church's positions. We each understand the impact of Roman Theology differently. We OBVIOUSLY disagree, since otherwise we would be united.
Ephesians 1:16-19 😊
3-4: indicating how Mary went thru her purification process after HER WOMB WAS OPENED by a male child. Mary was unclean according to the Mosaic Laws due to the issue of blood after the normal birthing of a child. Lev 12:8: “And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”
Jesus said for a spirit has no flesh or bones, you see that I have. His mother has appeared and is still appearing.
Matthew 13:55-56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us?
We agree that her body was ASSUMED into Paradise. Where we disagree is whether she died first or not. I would suggest you double check with a local Roman Catholic theologian as to the official doctrine of her death. It has evolved over the centuries. In terms of her ever-virginity, it is not doctrine in the Orthodox Church, but a pious belief, since whether she had additional children or not would not disrupt the nature of Christ.
If Mary was merely the mother of the human jesus, what do you suggest became of the human jesus when the Divine Jesus entered his physical body?
First of all Mary is not the Mother of God she is the Mother of Christ. In order for her to be the mother of God she would have to be the mother of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Why? Because that is the definition of God 3 in one you can't have one without the other. So when we say God we are talking about the whole Godhood. Yes Jesus is God but he is the second person of the God head not the only person. Mary is like an envelope, no disrespect. When you get mail you receive the envelope and open the envelope to get the letter inside you don't pay much attention to the envelope what is important is the letter. The scriptures don't say much about Mary because her work was done she gave birth to The Christ what else do we need?
Very good point. I would like to hear a counterpoint from the video owner if they could.
I did not say the divine Son did not become incarnate only that the incarnation is a mystery that MUST NOT be explained in human terms ending up in blasphemy. LOVE TO YOU IN GOD'S NAME.
IN THE WAY OF YHWH.
The Bible nowhere instructs us to revere, pray to, rely on, or “idolize” anyone other than God. We are to worship God alone. Glory, praise, and honor belong to God alone. Only God is worthy to “receive glory and honor and power” (Revelation 4:11). God alone is worthy to receive our worship, adoration, and praise (Nehemiah 9:6; Revelation 15:4).
What Men-pleasers Do (Galatians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:4)
They seek the approval of men above the approval of God. The rule is, human beings have a propensity that welcomes the praise of their fellows. While there may be exceptions, the rule is we enjoy being complimented or honored. The danger is, we can easily become intoxicated and consumed by this need, then crave the praise of men. The next step in this moral digression is, to seek human approval as a personal priority. Those exposed by the Lord in Matthew 6 were guilty of this. They did their "charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them." The same motive prompted their ostentatious praying and fasting. Among some of the leading Pharisees, there was at least intellectual confidence in the claims of Christ, but "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God," (John. 12:41). Again the problem was described by our Lord when He said: "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their father to the false prophets," (Lk. 6:26). Men-pleasers seek the approval of men above the approval of God. Let us aim higher. The personal priority of every child of God must be, to seek the approval of God, regardless of how men respond to our preaching and practice. Our Father is a "rewarder of those who diligently seek Him," (Heb. 11:6). They adapt their message to their audiences. Men-pleasers deliver to their audiences that which will elicit their approval. They have made this their priority. In every time of controversy since Pentecost, there have been men catering to the crowd; even changing and adapting their message from audience to audience, not out of conviction, but to please and to become known as crowd pleasers. Paul and Timothy are examples of men who were not willing to do this. Paul told the Corinthians: "For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church," (1 Cor. 4:17). When people (baptized or not) "will not endure sound doctrine," they should hear it anyway, regardless of response or consequence. When sound doctrine is not the desire of heart, audiences will "heap up for themselves teachers," and men-pleasers will heap up for themselves a following. (See 2 Tim. 4:1-5) This craving to please your audience can quickly lead to language so concerned with diplomacy, it conveys nothing substantial or scriptural, only sentiment. {I have long believed that there are men teaching error of divorce and remarriage because they want to please the world. They found a way to teach it, twist it and spin it, to make it as easy as the world expects.} They carefully avoid negative pronouncements. Though God requires preachers to "convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching," this duty is neglected by men-pleasers in situations where such wouldn't be welcomed. It is one thing to "speak the truth in love," (Eph. 4:15), but to speak without truth is not loving, even if praised and applauded by men. There is the exhibition of this, when preachers step so delicately, they trample over truth to keep people happy. An honest reading of 1, 2 Timothy and Titus can bring us to a better understanding of real preaching, and supply both motive and method to avoid the immature, frenzied work to gain the good esteem of men, leaving truth unspoken and sinners lost. Preachers who are "running for office," seeking trophies from men, building an image, leading a movement, proving their soundness by campaign, or otherwise ill-motivated will wind up withholding needed truth or twisting scripture. The response by faithful brethren should be to use every legitimate means to stop the mouths of vain talkers (Titus 1:9-13, Jude 3). They will use association to generate favor (politics). When preaching and practice is aimed to please a group, gain the favor of well-known brother or gain access to a circle or cliché, the point has been missed altogether. When a "brotherhood writer" pens an article to lobby for entrance or acceptance of men, he should not be published if the motive is known. Men-pleasers eventually fall into the sin of undisciplined fellowship, endorsement of anyone baptized and this means - giving no heed to God's instructions as to one's association (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11, etc.). Do we not know that "friendship with the world is enmity with God?" (Jas. 4:4). And what a contrast, that some preachers seek reputation when Jesus "made Himself of no reputation," (Phil. 2:7)! {The inordinate desire to advance above others was part of the way of life Paul renounced in his obedience to the gospel, see Gal. 1:13-16.} Every preacher needs to ask himself the question stated in Galatians 1:10. "Do I seek to please men?" Paul responded: "For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ." Get the point? The men-pleaser in Gal. 1:10 is not a servant of Christ.
Shalom to all that read.
1-4: Tradition re Mary is based on the apocryphal Gospel of James written around 150 AD. Earliest reference in 3rd century by Origen of Alexandria, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter" was of dubious, recent appearance. This is a case wherein TRADITION can make the Words of God of NONE EFFECT. The “ever-virgin” & “sinless” status given to Mary clearly contradicts Luke’s account. Lk 2:21-24 (KJV): “… And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were
To begin with, when it fell to the Virgin’s lot to be entrusted to Joseph she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come… (Epiphanius reference Protoevanelgium of James)
Why do the Catholic's and Orthodox fight so hard to perpetuate the perpetual virginity/immaculate conception of Mary? That, along with prayers to the saints and icons. I just don't see how these beliefs and practices are worth the criticisms and baggage that they bring. There's enough to defend (by way of biblical beliefs) without these things. Why clutter the landscape with items that aren't integral to the day to day life of a believer?
By way of sanctification...removing these things doesn't make a lick of difference. And the fact that these beliefs and practices are nowhere to be found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (those who lived closest to the time of the apostles) is very telling. These things were developed and added over time. Considering similar practices can be found in the surrounding non-Christian culture that the early church was incubated in... It seems like they adapted tenants from paganism so as to accomadate and attract the unbelieving world. This is the equivalent of accepting gay marriage so as to attract the world. This may not be the case, but as an avid reader of history, this DOES seem to be the case. Regardless, this is how it looks to protestants. I believe these are valid concerns.
Becoming the world...to attract the world is an oxymoron that's counter productive. In modern times protestantism has perfected it, but in many cases, the Catholics and Orthodox invented it.
If these things could be found in the works of Clement, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaus and Polycarp...I'd be convinced that they're extra-biblical (but yet biblical) traditions that the apostles taught (but for some reason didn't end up in scripture).
If the orthodox dropped these beliefs and practices, I'd immediately convert. I just don't see how these things are integral to the core and foundation of the Christian experience. Plus, they just simply cannot be backed up by scripture (which immediately makes the Catholic and orthodox church a target to be INSTANTLY dismissed by protestants). It's not as if these things are likened unto issues such as the divinity of Christ, the bodily resurrection and baptism (all things worth contending for). To fight for them as if they are brick and mortar tenants that serve as the cornerstone to Christianity just BEGS for suspicion from protestants. This is largely due to the fact that similar beliefs and practices can be traced back to ancient paganism. Both the Catholic and orthodox church place themselves in a position to be criticized.
I'm all for contending for the tenants of scripture...but you'd never come to these conclusions without the necessity of church tradition...a tradition that first appeared HUNDREDS of years after the lives of the apostles and the church fathers who knew them personally. This is a major red flag to me. It gives me a vast amount of pause. I understand (and agree) with the idea of purporting church traditions (that don't directly appear in scripture) but the preoccupation with Mary, iconography, and prayers to the saints seems SO out of place with ANYTHING biblical. Thus the reason it's a red flag to protestants.
Accepting the Catholic and orthodox traditions require more faith than believing on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.
This is such a shame. I absolutely adore MANY (if not most) of what the Orthodox church teaches AND practices. The Philokalia is worth its weight in gold...as is the writings of St. Theophan and many others. I've NEVER encountered such profound spiritual truths in all of my life. It's such a shame that so many are deprived of these riches because of the obstinance and insistence of persisting in the aforementioned items. It seems like such a waste. How tragic.
I almost covet to convert to Orthodoxy...but things such as this prevent me. This makes me profoundly sad.
Thank you for your comments and challenges. Naturally, this forum is not sufficient to adequately address your points. I will rather suggest a few points. First, and of great importance, is the Orthodox Church does NOT believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Her perpetual virginity however is attested to in the most ancient texts of the Church as pious beliefs of the faithful. That being said, her perpetual belief is NOT a dogma of the Church. Dogmas are limited to the issue that "effect" the person of Christ. While we believe her to be a perpetual virgin, if she ever did have children, it would not (as you also said) change the divinity of Christ. But you should considers this. Joseph was an elderly righteous man who had an angelic vision that Mary, who had been entrusted to his protection, was pregnant as a miracle of God. Practically speaking, Orthodox can easily accept that Joseph would never have desired to have sexual relations with her. This is the pious explanation. I pray this gives a glimpse, but again, it requires a human interaction and dialogue to adequately discuss. Prayers to the Saints and the presence of Icons is equally ancient as a matter of piety, but the Seventh Ecumenical Council affirmed the THEOLOGICAL DOGMATIC truth of icons. Since the Son of God in TRUTH lived and was witnessed, He can and should be depicted.
Your words resonate so much me. I love this comment.
While Orthodox do teach the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, doctrine is reserved for issues pertaining to Christ. I do find one thing interesting about the modern debate about the Mother of God. MOST hold Joseph to be a young man, which itself is not an ancient understanding. In the context of Joseph being of old age and righteous in the eyes of God, even the thought of his having relations with the woman who bore God seems outrageous and unbelievable.
The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in heaven for their prayers. Why, then, pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers?
Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "approach the throne of grace with confidence."
The Bible is absolutely clear that we are to worship God alone. The only instances of anyone other than God receiving worship in the Bible are false gods, which are Satan and his demons. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshipped (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-14). The holy angels refuse to be worshipped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same, “Worship God!”
Prayer doesn't equal worship.
No sane Orthodox worships The Holy Mother of God or God's Saints and Angels as gods. We venerate them and we are in communication with them by asking for their prayers in front of God, given, they are closer to Him. Prayer (as asking for a favor) and veneration (paying respects) is NOT worship.
You should rather wonder what is going to happen to someone who disrespects The Most Pure Mother of their King and His close family. Would The King even allow such ill mannered person into His Kingdom? True Christianity is not about the letter of the law that you so frantically are trying to find in the Scriptures, but the Tradition in a good sense of it (like actually knowing the commandments, because the 5th commandment unites Christ and His Mother and God is faithful to His own commandments) and simple common sense.
I understand what is said about the prayer to saints, but what is it that lead the orthodox church to believe that they are heard by saints? I agree that they are alive in Christ, but it seems to me that they are moved on from this mortal plane and I don't see how they would have anything to do with us or want to. I do not mean to argue; I simply wish to understand your point of view.
+Kirk Demerath Beautiful question. When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into each other as well. Since they love the Lord, they love us. Similarly, if we love the Lord our love for others is what creates the drive for us to assist them. It's all about love.
3of3: The integration of the mortal with the divine Christ may be explained in part by the science of QM (spooky entanglement theory) in terms of what we see as solids (all matter held together by an unknown force) are actually made of LIGHT at matter’s minutest level. If God is light & holds all things together (1 Jn 1:5-6; 8:12; 9:5; Col 1:15-17) then the incarnation of Christ is nowhere near what you envision; there is no “entering” but rather God manipulating light at the core of matter.
This is a problem of our modern day. A handful (literally) being used as if equal value is to be placed on their point of view. You might wish to consider this "debate". I choose a few wrong opinions. The term FATHERS is quite specific and cannot be used to include those outside the Church consciousness throughout the centuries, just as you cannot consider Arius a "Church Father" as he was a heretic.
Questions to consider. Can you be fully human without having sin? I question this because we have to think about our first parents (Adam and Eve) before their fall. Were they human before they fell into sin?
The dogma of the assumption of Mary only declares that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. The dogma didn’t declare whether she died first before she was assumed/translated or if she never died. The Catholic Church leaves it open to all its believers. We do have Catholics who believe that she never died, but we also have Catholics that believed that she died. It’s up to the individual catholic, but I can understand your perspective. I truly believe that she did fell asleep. If Christ our savior died, then Mary could have died too.
Regarding the immaculate conception of the Theotokos. I think our understanding of original sin/ancestry sin are different from each other. In the eyes of the Orthodox Church Mary must have our broken nature to be fully human, Christ had to have our broken nature to free us from our broken nature. “What he didn’t assume he never freed us from”. So having a broken nature in the eyes of the orthodox is to become fully man.
In the eyes of the Catholic Church. Adam and Eve were fully humans before our fall. But through sin they became “less” human. Humans were created out of sin. It was never intended for humans to have a inclination towards sin. So original sin is a human deficiency in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This is the reason why Jesus can deliver us from every human suffering since he was fully human and we were “less human” in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Even though he never “assumed” our human deficiency doesn’t make him less human. It makes him more human for the Catholic Church.
Lastly, what is the Catholic Perspective if Mary was free from any sin. Could she be the savior of the world instead of Jesus? I think A well-understanding Catholic would say no. Mary is a finite human being so her sacrifice on Calvary could never be for the world she has no infinite “value” in her since she was a finite human being. Christ in the other hand was both human and divine. His infinite value was far more than perfect to save the whole world. I think this is my understanding of it.
Thank you for your video. I was torn between orthodoxy and Catholicism for a while. I can see why the orthodox reject the immaculate conception. I had a difficult time understanding the catholic perspective truly questioning. If Jesus never had Our inclination towards sin, how can he be fully human and represent us? Good Orthodox challenges and concerns towards the catholic belief. May God extend you his grace towards you and your parish. God grant you many Years!
Psalm 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.
Correct. I refer mainly to Protestants which includes even many Episcopalians. To suggest that she did NOT die would be to deny her humanity.
Here is what Jerome actually THINKS about Helvidius, "I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating."
I am Catholic and as far as I understand , Mary died and was assumed into heaven , meaning that she was taken up to heaven by Jesus. She was not resurrected or ascended into heaven by herself.
To restrict "dogma" to "scripture", or even to the "ecumenical councils", is too minimalist, in my view. The writings of the Holy Fathers interpret both of these sources, and enrich the orthodox doctrine about the Theotokos, e.g., that she was a virgin not only before, but also during and after the birth of Christ.
You may believe as you wish. As I stated quite clearly it is a universal belief that she was ever-virgin, but it is NOT dogma.
Thank you Father Athanasius. My interest was not to debate but to clarify catholic positions, which you apparently miss represented. Catholics have always believed in the ever virginity of the Theotokos, and argued against the often missused Matt 1:25. Regarding her death, the language of Munificentissimus Deu implies it. What we believe is that her dead body did not undergo corruption.
The issue about whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died before her assumption is rather an open question in Catholicism. Do the Eastern Orthodox deny her Assumption? I know it is not a doctrine of Orthodoxy but is there a theological consensus?
truly father, the Catholic Church has not defined it contrary with what you state. Catholics are free to believe either option, and yes although only some modern scholars maintain that she did not undergo death, traditionally, the more universal voice is that she did. I in fact agree with you but not as a fact for doctrinal necessity. You must be aware of the voice of St. Epiphanius of Constantia. God Bless.
Jesus the God created Mary.. And everything on earth and universe ..
Couldn't you say that about Elijah and Enoch, since they didn't die, that puts to question their humanity as well. I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church strictly says that Mary did or did not die before her assumption. Though it is a popular teaching that she was assumed into heaven like Elijah and Enoch and didn't taste death, as I understand it, it's not a mandatory thing to believe in the Catholic Church. But Catholics like myself do believe she was assumed bodily into heaven.
I suppose the very word debate is where things go off. To say there were different thoughts of who the brothers were (other than Mary's) is not the same as saying they actually debated it.
I dont know why people have problems with the incarnation mystery and the inmaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. We are all incarnations, and just as a woman is our door to this world, another woman is the door out of it.But surely, another kind of woman, lest you want to be born again here.
4-4: God is a TRIUNE GOD, ever existing in eternity; God has no parents. Man-made imaginations MUST NOT compromise the NATURE OF GOD. Mary was the mother of the human Yeshua only. The multi-dimensionality of an infinite God is beyond the comprehension of finite minds & thus cannot grasp the mechanics of the dual nature of Yeshua, simultaneously God & Human; a mystery known only to God. 3rd/4th century “Mother of God” idea was an attempt to satisfy human thinking, such is the error of tradition.
Exactly.
I'm very confused..a three year old female child somehow Got into the Holy oh Holys? or she we in there when she was older? a girl, not a levite? more specifically not a levitical priest? much more specifically not a male levitical high priest on the day of atonement but a girl went into the holy of holy's? I see a bit of a problem with that....
Cameron Marron In this book www.amazon.com/The-Life-Virgin-Mary-Theotokos/dp/0944359035 you will find a well done compilation of what the Orthodox Church teaches about her life and the events surrounding the Nativity of Christ.
Consider this from Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyrpus (late 4th century) as evidence of the "generally accepted teaching by then)
Hi Fr. Athanasios. This is Fr. Vladimir. Remember me? I appreciate this video. You highlighted some key points that I will be using in my catechumen class. God bless your service in Christ.
thank God for Christ and the Theotokos who bore HIm,
and to the Orthodox priest- you spoke well on this,
question though?
i know these two text were written in the second century,
but i would like to know why the Church did not add them into the canon of scripture- in hindsight it would of cut out alot of confusion among Protestantism
- the 2 text i refer to is the "Protovangelium of James," and the "Gospel of the Nativity of Mary"
plus those are apocryphal but are the only two text that seem to speak of the Theotokos before the Annunciation (in Luke)- her early life
so the question is:
why didn't the Church accept the Protovangelium of James and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary in the canon of scripture?
to think of it it would of covered what your saying here from holy tradition and would of stop alot of confusion amongst protestants latter on even though that would be 1300 years latter roughly.
and it does cover Marys early life even according to the tradition of the Church
even if the 2 were written in the Second Century AD- they still seem to bear the tradition of mary's early life- just saying
The Holy Scriptures confirm the doctrines about Christ. That is why the "only" Scripture stories confirm the virgin birth of Christ and her lineage etc.
thanks you
but the gospels speak primarly of christ, that is trure
im just thinking in hindsight the two text giving the story of mary would of cleared up alot for latter sects - just saying
This is incorrect. The RCC does NOT teach that Mary never died. We teach that she died and THEN was assumed into heaven body and soul. This is exactly the same teaching as the Orthodox Church.
Her BODILY Assumption is affirmed in Orthodoxy AFTER her death. Good point about doctine as doctrine is reserved for matter pertaining to the nature of Christ. Whether her body was assumed after her death by Christ (as the Holy Icons of the Feast of her Dormition teach as well) does not alter who Jesus Christ is, and therefore not subject to doctrine.
Father athanasius, please clarify that when you say western Church, you refer to protestants. Catholics do believe the Theotokos is ever virgin. Also, The Catholic Church has never stated as matter of dogma that she did die or did not and it has allow Catholics to believe freely either position.
The ancient Church knew Joseph as an old man. The ancient Church knew the Mother of God as ever-virgin. If Mary was ever-virgin and Joseph was a widower, either the "brothers" were close cousins, associates or Joseph's children.
feilung888 ... There are two points here. First, Enoch and Elias WILL return to die when the announce the return of Christ. This is NOT the case with the Virgin Mary. Second, the doctrine of her bodily assumption FOLLOWED the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. In other words, Roman Catholics USED to believe she died. There are even Churches built in honor of her death. As I understand RC teaching, since she was conceived immaculate she COULDN'T die.
If there was immaculate conception that means by the grace of God she was preserved from all sin, had no inner struggling for sinful behavior. But she's a human just like adam and eve
Only God is without sin.
While historically there have been some Protestant theologians-basically at the start of the "Reformation" and in our own era who affirm a more positive role for the Blessed Virgin Mary in their theology, Protestantism in its nature has a problem with any veneration of the saints or the BVM since they do not believe in sanctifying grace or the necessity for good works post justification. Everybody is just a depraved sinner saved by grace through faith--or not.
That is not true only Calvinists believe this. Either your lying or highly misinformed.
Unreconstructed Rebel the majority of Lutherans do not and most evangelicals do not
I don't know why the church had to develop all the extra theological theses on Mary. Was't that glorious enough that God has chosen her as the mother of His Son? she did not have to be immaculate born herself, had not remain a virgin through her all life after giving birth t Jesus, had not to ascended body and soul to Heaven. God is Almighty and Powerful enough, to skip all the doctrines!
I’m not sure you watched the video. As the video points out, the ONLY dogma about her is indeed about Christ.
Hey this was a very interesting video. Do you know of any good/credible sources on the early church fathers and what they taught? Basically do you know any sources on church tradition and how they came about? Thanks
+theStashSmash A VERY good resource that has a compilation of information from the first century onward about the Theotokos is: smile.amazon.com/The-Life-Virgin-Mary-Theotokos/dp/0944359035/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g2243581662?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&ie=UTF8.
The Virgin Mary was not sinless. She was purified by the Holy Spirit at the conception of Christ and remained a virgin. This is not the same as saying she is sinless.
Indeed the Church has always referred to the Mother of God as ever-virgin. If the early Church considered His 'brothers" as her children, they would not have used the term.
A good, albeit not scholarly, general resource for what the Orthodox Church teaches surrounding the Mother of God, read "The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos" published by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, CO. It is a good synopsis and filled with references.
Maybe Joseph took another wife after Mary, but it seems less likely that he would before. I think Matthew giving the genealogy of Joseph rather than Mary was significant because it establishes Jesus as the first born and rightful aire to the throne of David. The throne did not always pass to the first born, such as David’s throne going to Solomon rather than Adoniyah. But I suspect the reason that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy was to establish His rightful claim as King of Judah, both as man and as God. I wouldn’t bet my life on it mind you, and I have no theological objection to Mary remaining a Virgin after giving birth, but I also see relevance to why it could be of significant that Jesus was the first born from Joseph.
According to the most ancient writings, Joseph was elderly and a widower with children. He was betrothed to Mary. There is no doubt about the ancient tradition. Joseph could not have taken another wife after Mary, as he was dead by the time Christ entered His "public" ministry when He was baptized by John.
@@BeTransfiguredMinistries Which ancient writings? I'm perfectly willing to concede to the writings of the church fathers, but I would like to know to which ones you're referring if you know that off the top of your head. Typically I would assume a 1st century carpenter would have a fairly short life span, so "elderly" would be a very subjective designation given the time period. And the financial means for paying the Mohar/Ketuba (Dowry) would take some years to accumulate unless Joseph came from a wealthy family which may have been the case. I'm Jewish and have become a believer in Jesus, so I'm exploring Christian Orthodoxy. I'm not just being argumentative, but these are real questions that I would like to read about and consider further. Thank you for any help/direction you could point me towards.
@@JustinMorgan105kg Did you read Protoevangelium of James.?
Excellent, thank you.
The Western Church has NEVER denied that the Most Holy Theotokos was ever virgin. Catholic believe that the Blessed Virgin went to sleep and then was assumed into heaven. We do not claim that she died. Please learn what the Catholic Church believes before you claim for us what we do not claim.
My friend there are MANY western Churches that claim she had other children, AND comments from other Roman Catholics on this very video differ from what you think is the teaching about her death.
Father, (I am guessing you are in the video) is the Western (Latin) Church, She does not have children because none of the Protestants are her children, they are rebels who have lost the True Faith and are outside her fold. Protestants quo protestant cannot be saved. I attended Jesuit school and was taught the faith by my parents. I was taught that the Most Holy Blessed Virgin went to sleep and then ascended into heaven when all the apostles gathered in Jerusalem except for Thomas who was able to experience the event through a miracle. Also, being a son of a Jew, I understand that not only Elijah and Enoch are in heaven bodily, so is _perhaps_ Moses who might have been _resurrected_ into heaven. However, what I fancy is not important, what matters is what the CHURCH believes. Just because an individual Catholic has incorrect belief you cannot assign that incorrect belief as being the belief of the Catholic Church.. Since the 1960 Catholics have not been well catechized. So, father, for the sake of Charity, don't assign to the Church what incorrect belief of the individual Catholic but what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
You should contact your priest to get clarification on your Church's stance on the Virgin Mary.
I think Deusimperator has stated his objection clearly and convincingly. And I must agree that: "So, father, for the sake of Charity, don't assign to the Church what incorrect belief of the individual Catholic but what the Catholic Church actually teaches."
I love the Orthodox Church and believe that sometime in the not too distant future there may be a reconciliation between the two Apostolic Churches. We have our work cut out for us with islam preparing for it's final assault on Christ and His Church.
Since you do not agree the Divine Son became incarnate, a continuous and universal teaching of Christianity, I will spare you the dialogue of further replies.
Why not call her the bearer of Christ, God the Son?
Our insistence to use the term "bearer of God" is a theological choice to affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Because they worship Mary.
Orthodox Christians venerate and honor the Virgin Mary due to the fact that she is the mother of Jesus Christ (God in human flesh) and we ask her to intercede for us. This is something that Christians have been doing since the very beginning of Church history. Jesus performed his first miracle at his mothers insistence at the wedding in Cana, when the party ran out of wine.
It seems that Jesus was a little reluctant to perform is first miracle. But at his mothers insistence he relented and changed the water into wine. This is a clear example of her intersessions to God which have been taking place for two thousand years.
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him."
Unreconstructed Rebel no because to deny that Mary is the mother of god is to deny that Christ was god in the flesh. Nestorius created the idea of the christotokos that Protestants follow he was condemned as a heretic. His belief created a false christology that Christ’s human and divine nature separate
@EugeneCronje For the same reason I don’t introduce my wife to people I meet by saying “this is my friend”. Whilst an accurate term, it does not fully stage the true nature of the relationship. Jesus is God, nothing less. Mary is his mother. Therefore, she is the mother of God (or bearer of God). It does jot mean that he proceeds from Mary, or that he was created by Mary. It simply means she is his mother, nothing more or less.
My bible says you can only get to the Father through Jesus, not Mary not the saints in heaven no other name! I have never read anything in the bible saying to ask anyone in heaven to pray for me.
So I suppose you never ask anyone to pray for you?
How about Book of Job where God instructs two men that were arguing Job to ask Job to pray for them...? Why.?
Can you recommend a good book that can help me understand more about theotokos and the saints? Perhaps the one being studied at this meeting?
www.amazon.com/Life-Virgin-Mary-Theotokos/dp/0944359035
the orthodox veneration of the mother of God by St John Maximovitch
So this is the dictionary entry citing Jerome of Rome. It also states, "The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages." Obviously Helvidius was not a major source of Church doctrine if nothing else exists. You might be reaching to place your theology on him.
For how could such an old man, who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panter; both of these brothers were the sons of the man named Panter. Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear. (Mark 6.3, John 19.25)
Again, this isn't the ancient citation. Who is Jerome in 1893 and who was Helvidius he was writing against?
He is, but I would like to see a direct citation before giving it weight. What you cited so far has Chrysostom in two categories. I'm not sure what that says.
Didn't Jesus have siblings?????
They were Joseph's children. They were step-siblings.
Hi Father Athanasios,
How do we explain or defend Orthodoxy to Born again Christians that label us as pagan, tradition faith. I have not watched the entire video yet im hoping it sheds lighton how to explain why we venerate tin Panayia.
Father, you pointed out Mary's particular ascension because of her relationship with Christ, I was wondering if all other Saints undergo the same, or are they simply dead, waiting for the resurrection?
Not in the same way. First we must remember the saints are not dead, but alive in Christ. They are asleep awaiting the bodily resurrection. Second besides the Mother of God, the only saint I can think of at the moment for which we never had relics was Saint John the Theologian. In a similar fashion to the Mother of God, when the Church returned to his grave his body was gone. To my memory, these are the only two.
Be Transfigured Ministries Thank you for the reply. God bless.
Hello. This is a wonderful, insightful video. I am learning the doctrine to become a member of the Orthodox church and I have a quick question: I struggle with the fact that Joseph had other children from a previous wife. Where can I find this in the Bible? I come from a Protestant background and I want to believe in the Thethokos, but something is keeping me back. Please help!! Thanks!
wade43671 Thank you. You will not find the information about Joseph and his children from a previous marriage in the Bible because it isn't in the Bible.What is the struggle you are having specifically with Joseph having children or the Theotokos?
Hi! Thanks for the quick response. I'm a catchumen coming from a Protestant background. I have a hard time with the Virgin Mary...the Theotokus. I understand that she is the bearer of God but I guess I just want to "see something in writing." I believe in the Theotokus but I think I need to have that simple faith to make me sure of it in my heart. Are there any church fathers that I can read about who talk about her? As far as the children of Joseph, I also need a leap of faith. Could you let me know of any books I could read--or holy fathers--that could make it easier for me to digest. Thanks!
wade43671 Here is a GREAT resource smile.amazon.com/The-Life-Virgin-Mary-Theotokos/dp/0944359035/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_1968491462?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0&pf_rd_p=1968491462&pf_rd_s=smile-campaign&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0944359035&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=07V435GJN0TBC5QVJHSK
You know Jerome agrees with what I taught in the video right? You're just using to show the debate right?
By the way, what you cite ISN'T Jerome directly, which you should cite for future reference. Most scholarship requires primary source citation as dictionaries and other articles cary a bias.
I don't think the assumption of Mary means she was never human. Jesus can assume Mary. He is God. If Enoch and Elisha can be assumed who were human .Why Not Mary who was human and the Mother of Jesus? I don't think Jesus would let his mother be corrupted. She was blessed among women. I know either way does it change who Jesus is but I am having a hard time with that logic.
There is a difference between the Theotokos and Enoch/Elias. The most important is that the prophets will return and be martyred to announce the return of Christ. Yes they didn't die....yet, but they will. Additionally ALL the ancient references are to her death, even celebrating her burial. Enoch/Elias were not buried as she was.
Have all righteous Orthodox prayed to saints or Mary? Can Protestants have the holy spirit?
Yipyo1986 The Holy Spirit can blow where it wills. (John 3.8) As for "who" has prayed to the Saints and Mary, yes all Orthodox have prayed to them over the centuries.
What are you sources for this?
So you don't really consider this as evidence that this was a "debated" issue do you? I would expect to see volumes to support such a claim. There WERE issues debated in the early Church and we can read TONS about what "both sides" had to say. I just don't see it on this issue. There is much more "modern" on the topic than ancient. I would agree with you that among Christians in general TODAY this is debated.
2-4: accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. “ The account of the ritual for purification of a woman after giving birth to a male child is found in Lev 12:1-8,
I'm sorry, but this does not cite ancient documents. Where are the ancient citations? There has been much written since the Protestant Reformation that has changed the interpretations of the ancient Fathers. The sentence you cite really isn't a source. I have already acknowledged that many in the Protestant world consider the brother and sisters to be Jesus' blood relatives. You haven't offered anything to counter what I have already said.
I think that says a great deal.
Mary
Do the Orthodox Christians ask Mary to intercede for them in Heaven?
Oh, ok, he said they do pray to Saints about 29:00
There is only ONE mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
1 Timoyhy 2:5
If that is true, then why bother praying for each other?
@@BeTransfiguredMinistries Not the same thing. We, who are alive can pray for each other. You can't pray for the dead. The dead know nothing.
But they are not dead. They are alive in Christ.
Theotokos is misleading. It is Christotokos which properly used means Mother of Christ who is also God. If bearer of God then it implies the Trinity. I think the Monophytes we're driving Theotokos.
No. You are not correct. The Church insisted on Theotokos BECAUSE Christ is God. The term does not refer to the Trinity.
@@BeTransfiguredMinistries If Mary is the Mother of God then Jesus is her grandson and the Father is her Son. If she bears "Christ who is also God" then it is as it appears.
She is not the "Bearer of the Father" . This is where you are confused. God is not JUST the Father. Jesus the Son is ALSO God as one of the Trinity.
@@BeTransfiguredMinistries and you just proved my point. Jesus is also God, but is not the trinity. So "bearer of Christ who is also God" is better. And for exactly the reason you stated.
The title given to her is a dogmatic statement of Who Christ is. Since Christ is God, then she is the "Bearer of God". This does NOT mean she is eternal, nor does it mean she was prior to the Trinity. It is a dogmatic term that makes clear that Jesus wasn't just "the anointed one" but God Himself. It in no way elevates her above God.
What book are your referencing in the video?
www.amazon.com/Life-Virgin-Mary-Theotokos/dp/0944359035
I don’t believe she was ever virgin. But I don’t see how that’s important. It is not at all sinful for a God-ordained husband and wife to have intercourse and bear children. She would not be any less holy of a woman by doing this. I also don’t believe she was born without sin or crowned the queen of heaven nor that she was a co-mediatrix or co-redemptrix, which is what the Baltimore Catechism taught me when I was a child. I don’t believe she was given her resurrection body early or bodily assumed into heaven. But I do believe she was the bearer of God and blessed among women. I find it safer to stick with what the scriptures tell us about her. It was enough to honor her as being the bearer of God the Son.
That is what you would need to do to claim them. I already know where your point of view comes from and you already know mine. You suggested the Fathers weren't as united on Mary and the brothers as I suggest. Where is the evidence?
I would caution you on placing so much on a single person, unless of course you don't accept that the ancient Church dealt with heresies. There have ALWAYS been a person or a handful who disagreed with the consensus, but that is a great distance apart from evidence of wide-spread debate. Let's face, some even suggested Jesus wasn't divine and the Father wrote against them as well. Would you suggest the divinity of Jesus was "debated" as if there wasn't wide-spread acceptance?
I hope you will reply to this, but would you consider the capital "S" Saints being capital "S" Saints to be dogmatic?
In other words, does the church believe that the 'S'aints will have a higher place in heaven than the 's'aints.
@@micahisham I don’t think anyone can answer that question. We will find out in good time! Anyway, it probably doesn’t matter too much - if we are considered by God to be worthy of Heaven, we will enjoy eternal happiness regardless of our place or rank there.
2of3: Scripture tells us heaven & earth cannot contain God so if you postulate God entered the human Christ in Mary’s womb thus essentially God became contained in her, you have split the unity of God & violated 2 immutable precepts. Let the mystery of incarnation stand as is, one that is beyond our comprehension: A mortal being (who was born & died) was “added” thru & united to the 2nd person of the Triune God (who cannot be born or die); result: Christ = 2 natures in 1 being.
I enjoy watching these films about the Orthodox Church and their beliefs. I was okay with your explanation on Mary until you had a tradition that Mary actually entered the Holy of Holies and dialoged with angels. No one but the high priest was allowed in the H of H; how in the world would they have allowed a young jewish girl into the H of H? I find that very, very hard to believe, as the Temple was always occupied by attending priests, etc.
Which puts into question the other traditions passed down by the Church over the centuries. People are fallible. People exaggerate. And yes, people are superstitious, especially coming out of a pagan world to become Christians. Isn't it possible that many of the traditions passed down are either inaccurate or downright untrue?
Thanks..,
If you believe that Virgin Mary bore a child from the Holy Spirit bypassing natural conception, why is it so hard to believe that She was allowed to go to the Holy of Holies? She Herself was soon to become the Holy of Holies. Her relative was a priest Zacharias (father of John the Baptist) and he did it. He wouldn't do it, unless he had a revelation from God. Besides, Virgin Mary was given away by her parents to the Temple at the age 3 as a "sacrifice" to God and lived there, like many other women (mostly widows) who served by sewing priest's garments etc, and she lived there until she was betrothed to Joseph. She lived an extremely pure life focused on God and His Temple, so it is only normal that she saw angels and conversed with them and when Archangel Gabriel saluted Her, it wasn't the first time She saw him - the Church Tradition has kept that he was her personal guardian angel.
Are there any theological differences between the Romanian Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church
There are no theological differences between any of the Orthodox Churches. There are cultural differences in the expression of the same theology.
Rev Protopresbyter Athanasios C Haros What do you mean by culturally? Also I am an Orthodox and believe in the Orthodox faith.
Orthodoxy is lived, so Romanians express the same theology through their Romanian history and life. Greeks, Russians etc all share the same theology but that theology has been and continues to live in different cultures and history. I offered a Q&A sermon on a similar topic...th-cam.com/video/wTvjGkB0vQY/w-d-xo.html
Rev Protopresbyter Athanasios C Haros Thank you father I had a question to ask you about salvation I think it would be more appropriate to ask this by e-mail where not everyone could see but if you more comfortable answering on here I can ask on here
You can send me a message using a private form available on my website at www.LiveANewLifeInChrist.org using the "tell us what you think" form on the left panel.
Amen.
Helvidius isn't a Father of the Church. You seem to be more concerned that there WAS debate about something that ultimately doesn't matter. As I state, the ONLY doctrine in this video is about the virgin-birth and that she is Mother of God. If you want to see debate, I can't stop you.
So here is what you discovered. The ONLY doctrine has to to do with the virgin birth and that she is Mother of God. The rest doesn't matter because it doesn't affect CHRIST. The Church allows for what we call "Theological Thoughts" so long as they don't interfere with the doctrine of Christ. EVEN the Mother of God having children AFTER Christ wouldn't alter HIM, so it isn't a doctrine of the Church. The CONSENSUS is Joseph's children, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.