tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post8649948056558397189..comments2024-02-05T12:58:03.949-05:00Comments on Wesleyan/Anglican: Theotokos; Mary, Mother of God?Todd A. Stepphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10712031457598684159noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-14907609451076101702023-02-11T14:58:47.150-05:002023-02-11T14:58:47.150-05:00As a SBC Protestant, now with a Catholic son and A...As a SBC Protestant, now with a Catholic son and Anglican daughter and a cousin who is a PhD Methodist Reverend, issues like this can create a bit of a Gordian Knot. For example, I had made a habit of reading Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" (circa 325 AD) every year in the lead-up to Christmas.(partly because of the great CS Lewis introduction) It is a Masterpiece and addresses the Arian heresy. Not until my son converted to Catholicism in 2019 and we stated discussing Mariology doctrine, did this reference by Athanasius in this book even register:<br /><br /> "No, he took our body, and not only so, but took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin, without the agency of human father - a pure body, untainted by by intercourse with man. He, the Mighty One, the Artificer of all, Himself, prepared this body in the virgin as a temple for Himself, and took it for his very own, as the instrument through which He was known and in which He dwelt." <br /><br />In this early church passage, not written to support Marian doctrine but to defeat the Arian heresy for which the universal church should be grateful, Athanasius alludes to both the Immaculate Conception and Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary, as the Mother of God (properly understood)-- as you note, is perhaps the easiest of the Marian doctrines. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-23473772216732155992022-04-11T01:59:56.060-04:002022-04-11T01:59:56.060-04:00As a former Roman Catholic who went through catech...As a former Roman Catholic who went through catechism, and who as a Protestant has further studied the history and official teachings of the R. Catholic Church, I cannot call R. Catholics my "brothers and sisters in Christ." While there may be some Catholics who actually are faithing in Christ alone, those who believe in the R. Catholic version of the Gospel are not saved because they are depending on their faith and works to merit their salvation (and the Council of Trent affirms this doctrine). I have spoken to, listened to and read the works of many R. Catholics, and none of them (except a couple of 16th century Catholic reformers) has affirmed that we are justified once and for all by grace through faith alone. I am, therefore, constantly amazed at how many Protestants (including Anglicans), most of whom were never Roman Catholics, are so quick as to confirm fraternity with those trapped in the false gospel of the Roman Catholic Church.Mr. B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06936595811299242911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-58205311041122778552022-02-03T02:17:19.615-05:002022-02-03T02:17:19.615-05:00I think it's a legitimate "fear." I ...I think it's a legitimate "fear." I remember once being in a RC church and hearing all the nuns obsessively praying to Mary. The repetitions while staring at the statue I truly believe is invoking demonic worship. That is bluntly what Many of us protestants believe if we are to say it Out right. And I think there is a good basis for arguing that point.Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04396403992107015310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-3374610697837984142021-07-19T18:13:38.470-04:002021-07-19T18:13:38.470-04:00Just came across this interesting thread ... it ce...Just came across this interesting thread ... it certainly can be argued that Catholic doctrine is reasonable and Biblical in the same sense that the doctrine of the Trinity is reasonable and Biblical although Scripture doesn't use that explicit term or provide an explicit definition of Trinity. Consider this reasoning (as Church councils and Fathers did): Mary is the mother of Jesus, Jesus is God (the Second Person of the Trinity), therefore Mary is the mother of God. <br /><br />It reasonably follows (as the Church Fathers also expound--see: https://taylormarshall.com/2011/12/church-fathers-on-immaculate-conception.html): In being the mother of God, Mary was conceived without Original Sin, therefore she was not subject to one of the penalties of Original Sin: physical death.SwissWisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11709470571671356278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-51467085945574385072020-12-06T21:37:46.150-05:002020-12-06T21:37:46.150-05:00My bible Luke 1:43 refers to Mary as the "mot...My bible Luke 1:43 refers to Mary as the "mother of my Lord". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-69244228160073335672020-12-06T21:34:24.184-05:002020-12-06T21:34:24.184-05:00The Catholic teaching is Mary died as all humans d...The Catholic teaching is Mary died as all humans do. Her body was assumed into heaven. Mary is not worshipped by Catholics. She is honored as an exceptional person, clearly with a unique and holy bond with the Lord.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-76332624056469251982018-08-31T18:28:22.667-04:002018-08-31T18:28:22.667-04:00Catholics do not teach that she did not die Catholics do not teach that she did not die Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-71118762762872338242018-08-18T14:06:34.143-04:002018-08-18T14:06:34.143-04:00I recommend reading this:
http://biblicalanthropo...I recommend reading this:<br /><br />http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com/2018/08/was-virgin-mary-dedicated-royal-woman.html<br />Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-28767053429836993632017-09-07T13:16:37.380-04:002017-09-07T13:16:37.380-04:00Antipas . . .
Please clarify how anything in the ...Antipas . . .<br /><br />Please clarify how anything in the article or the comments (not sure which you are referring to, of if both) fall short of your "novel idea." - I'm very hesitant about commenting further, because I'm looking for clarification, so that I am not misunderstanding. But, your comment does seem quite snarky . . .Todd A. Stepphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712031457598684159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-81569321905669448162017-09-07T12:27:39.980-04:002017-09-07T12:27:39.980-04:00I have a novel idea: Read and accept the Biblical...I have a novel idea: Read and accept the Biblical account<br />Antipas Prayer Force:https://www.blogger.com/profile/08318447050493202443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-11535027061289201172017-07-11T01:08:55.929-04:002017-07-11T01:08:55.929-04:00Just a little insight: Even though there is no dir...Just a little insight: Even though there is no direct indication in the Scriptures on assumption of Mary, but Revelation 12:14 could be an indirect indication (where it says the woman was given two wings of eagle to fly). This part is not a Catholic teaching, but my own insight which may not have much worth. However, as you might know, for the Catholics there are 3 source of divine inspiration: The Scriptures, Tradition, and Ecumenical Counsils. The two latter shall never contradict the Scriptures however. So since there are lots of early Church Fathers writings about the assumption of Mary, we can believe that it really did happen. You correctly mentioned of other "taking up to heaven" experiences in the Scriptures (Elijah, Enoch, Moses), so Mother of God can easily be believed to have assumed in heaven.<br />One more thing I'd like to add: The term "Mother of my Lord" was first given to Mary by Elisabeth who said this term while she was filled with Holy Spirit in the gospel of Luke. John 1:1 says that the Word was God. So saying Mother of God is as correct as saying Mother of the Lord. Because the second person of the holy Trinity (The Word) is our Lord and is God. We can alternatively use these terms. As it was correctly mentioned by one of the Orthodox brothers, the emphasis on using "Mother of God" was to condemn the Nestorious heresy. It was being used way before then, but in the Calcedon it was emphasized. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11519153691234744503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-72828045866390932582017-07-11T00:37:13.406-04:002017-07-11T00:37:13.406-04:00Hi,
I am a Roman Catholic and I just want to offer...Hi,<br />I am a Roman Catholic and I just want to offer a correction in what you mentioned: Roman Catholics don't believe that Mary didn't experience death! They believe in her assumption (body and soul) to heaven. But whether she died or not, it is not a dogma. So a Roman Catholic is free to believe that Mary died before assumption to heaven (Most Catholics believe this) or she didn't die at all. The tradition goes that since Mary wanted to be like Christ in every possible sense, she chose to die so she fell asleep (died) and then (on the third day) she was taken up to heaven. Even though Pope Pius XII declared her assumption as a dogma, it doesn't mean that this doctorin was invented by him as some Protestants assume. The tradition goes back to the early Christian writings and that's the very reason that the Orthodox church believes exactly the same. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11519153691234744503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-24965484496683843622014-12-07T15:49:03.118-05:002014-12-07T15:49:03.118-05:00Your welcome. The confession rite at my church als...Your welcome. The confession rite at my church also includes mention of Mary as Ever-Virgin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-72810427329677087292014-12-07T15:33:19.982-05:002014-12-07T15:33:19.982-05:00Thank you for contributing to this conversation!Thank you for contributing to this conversation!Todd A. Stepphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10712031457598684159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-71990650817894297882014-12-07T11:07:02.819-05:002014-12-07T11:07:02.819-05:00Not certain where Avey got the objection that Rome...Not certain where Avey got the objection that Rome teaches Mary is immortal without an earthly death. As I used to be a Catholic catechumen I know this to be false. The teachings on the Assumption of Mary as defined by Pope Pius XII leans strongly eastward. In the Eastern circle of Christianity Mary died and is said to be resurrected and brought up to Heaven (generally three days later). This is called the Dormition of Mary in the East.<br /><br />Before I became a member of the ACA, I wanted to make certain my Mariology would be accepted. The Vicar General answered my question as to whether we honour the Virgin Mary with an "Of course! She's the Mother of God! We don't worship her but then again, no one does." I still pray the rosary (I was kind of an oddball Eastern Catholic catechumen for doing that). You might be interested in Pelikan's "Mary Through the Centuries" which goes through the development of Mariology. Most Christians tend to accept the first three councils (up through Ephesus) and it is at Ephesus that Nestorianism is refuted and Mary is defended to be the Mother of God. Even the Assyrian Church of the East seems to accept this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-10036565219308678782010-03-26T12:19:51.535-04:002010-03-26T12:19:51.535-04:00Thank you - that was very helpful.Thank you - that was very helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-16999031539114813852010-03-25T23:53:45.512-04:002010-03-25T23:53:45.512-04:00The doctrine of Theotokos is not the issue that wo...The doctrine of Theotokos is not the issue that would cause a problem for . . .those for whom it is a problem. :0)<br /><br />Rather, it is the verbage and the associated bagage that the term brings with it, along with that which is largely misunderstood about what the RC church teaches about Mary and anti-Roman prejudices.<br /><br />That is to say, while you likely would not hear the title used in a Nazarene setting (and you may hear some disagree with the title), the actual theology taught concerning the nature of Christ and the role of Mary would be quite orthodox. -Again, see above my example of the Charles Wesley hymn. - The issue is not whether Mary is mother of Christ who is God, but rather the assumption that the Theotokos somehow implies that Mary is mother of the Father who is God.<br /><br />As for Wesley, he is the conduit through which the faith once delivered the the saints has been delivered to us. We stand as spiritual decendents of the Wesleys.<br /><br />However, Wesley points us to the ecumenical creeds and the Church Fathers. He understood that the faith of Methodism was, indeed, the faith of the Church of England, and the Ancient Church, and the faith of the apostles. The Articles of Religion are essentially the Anglican Articles.<br /><br />There is, in that sense, nothing unique to the Methodist faith.<br /><br />Put another way, Wesley stands subject to and pointing us toward the creeds, the councils, the Fathers, the Scriptures. Their special charism and authority do not trum the pre-schism church.<br /><br />But that they have demonstrated a "special charism," I would firmly believe. And frankly, I can't imagine that one would see the Wesley's of little universal importance. If one considers the breadth of Methodism world wide, along with those who have decended from it (e.g., Pentecostalism), and, thus, through them the spread of the Gospel, I would question what one means by importance. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I do appreciat your comments. And perhaps you will grow in your appreciation of the Wesleys! :0)Todd Stepphttp://wesleyananglican.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-14335016261120437742010-03-25T14:09:15.215-04:002010-03-25T14:09:15.215-04:00Out of curiousity, is it in fact acceptable in the...Out of curiousity, is it in fact acceptable in the Nazarene church to teach that Mary is not Theotokos, ie, could one openly preach Nestorian teachings?<br /><br />My family is Wesleyan and attend a somewhat liberal church, but even there I was told that the first four councils are normative (though one pastor insists it is a grave error not to affirm the first seven). In many ways I admire the Wesleys, but for the life of me, I can't see how they can be accorded a special charism or authority that trumps the ecumenical authority and witness of the pre-schism Church. There seems to be a certain arbitrariness in this, which is the main reason I continue to understand them as historically interesting but of little universal importance. I mention this as context for my question, not to challenge anyone's beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-15179047038412260062010-03-25T12:35:18.033-04:002010-03-25T12:35:18.033-04:00Speaking as an Orthodox: I have never attended a p...Speaking as an Orthodox: I have never attended a parish or been under the direction of a spiritual father who suggested that the Marian nativity or dormition narratives should be understood in any way shape or form to be dogmatic. In fact several priests have advised me that it is an error in the extreme to consider either to be literal or discursive: the teachings of both relate to the promise of our salvation and our union with God in Christ. However, with the Ecumenical Fathers, we would consider those who teach that the Virgin is not Theotokos to be in Christological error, ie, heresy. It would be weird, and I doubt something a Bishop would allow to be taught, but one could be Orthodox and not labeled a heretic if one doubted the perpetual virginity of Mary. I think rather you'd be told you were on very dangerous ground, though, since we believe this is directly contradicted by Scripture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-32298498907061291702010-03-09T21:25:21.357-05:002010-03-09T21:25:21.357-05:00Regarding the Dormition and subsequent Assumption:...Regarding the Dormition and subsequent Assumption: I personally think it's possible and probable. After all, Enoch and Elias were translated to heaven without undergoing death. Moses was resurrected after death. So, why would it not be possible for the very Mother of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, to be resurrected after she died? Also, given the hunger for relics of the medieval Church, wouldn't relics of the Blessed Virgin's body have been circulating if indeed her body was still around?<br /><br />Despite my willingness to accept this as a possibility and probability, I cannot agree with our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox neighbors in viewing this as dogmatic material. The Roman Catholics affirmed this as a dogma in 1950. <br /><br />The Eastern Orthodox, while denying they affirm this as a dogma (in the RC sense), do sort of slip it in as a somewhat sort of dogma in their practice. <br /><br />--The feast of the Dormition is preceded by a 2 week fast, which even overshadows our Lord's feast of the Transfiguration on August 6.<br /><br />--Also, Eastern Orthodox (like Anglicans) cite their liturgical services as indicative of what they truly believe. The Vespers and Matins services of the Eastern Orthodox faith are indicative of that faith's confidence in the apocryphal story of the dormition and bodily resurrection and assumption of the Theotokos. <br /><br />--Eastern Orthodox will say that they don't consider the Dormition as dogma in terms of kerygma; perhaps true? but, it is still part of that faith's teaching in terms of "inner life" and inner-tradition. I doubt seriously that any member of the Eastern Orthodox faith would be at liberty (without being deemed a heretic) to deny the events as portrayed in the Vespers and Matins services for August 15.<br /><br />In fact, if I had to absolutely choose between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics on the issue of the Dormition/Assumption (with no Protestant option), then I think I'd side with Rome. Rome only requires that a person believe that the Virgin bodily and in soul assumed into heaven at the completion of her earthly life--bam--that it. <br /><br />However, even a cursory glance of the Eastern Orthodox services of the Dormition engages the worshipper in a lot of minute details taken from the Transitus stories and various apocryphal sources.<br /><br />And again, why make that any kind of dogma at all?Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14691199106409720583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-21042712931236366112010-03-09T21:19:10.501-05:002010-03-09T21:19:10.501-05:00Hello,
Nice conversation. I'd like to add m...Hello, <br /><br />Nice conversation. I'd like to add my 2 Turkish Lira worth.<br /><br />I would tend to doubt the statement that "Protestantism, almost universally, denies it" (i.e. that Blessed Mary is Theotokos or Deipara or Mother of God)--at least from an Epicopalian / Anglican perspective. Anglicanism affirms the doctrine of the Theotokos based on the unity of the Hypostasis of God the Son (see the "Seattle Statement" from 2004). <br /><br />Historically, the Fathers of the Reformation in England (and I noticed and concur with your accurate citing of John Wesley) affirmed the orthodoxy of the Council of Ephesus, considered Nestorius a heretic, and affirmed that the Blessed Virgin is indeed truly "Mother of God." It is also interesting to read some of the beautiful "theopaschite" verbiage in folks like Richard Hooker, and other English Divines. I would also be remiss if I neglected to mentione that the 1549 BCP affirmed the Theotokos in the Eucharistic Prayer. This liturgical affirmation in the anaphora was taken up by the Non-Jurors' Liturgy in 1718.<br /><br />Furthermore, Reformers on the Continent also affirmed the teaching about the Theotokos. This is certainly upheld in the Lutheran Confessions as well as from Geneva. <br /><br />I also have a good level of confidence that the Fathers of the English Reformation and those that came after were pretty firm in acknowledging the perpetual virginity of Mary. This was affirmed by Hugh Latimer, Thomas Cranmer, John Hooper, John Jewell, Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes, Robert Abbot, Robert Field, Richard Crakanthorpe, James Ussher, William Forbes, John Bramhall, John Cosin, Herbert Thorndike, Jeremy Taylor, George Bull, Thomas Brett, and of course John Wesley.<br /><br />That being said, the Reformation in England was brutal against *popular* Roman Catholic piety concerning the Mother of God, because such popular piety was way overboard even by today's Roman Catholic standards. Unfortunately, in my opinion, some good things of devotion got *temporarily* thrown out (I think the destruction of Walsingham was a tragedy). However, despite the terseness of the initial generations of Reform in England, the English Reformers were orthodox in their view of the Virgin Mary (with respect to her being the Deipara and aeiparthenos--ever-virgin). <br /><br />They were also very, very respectful when mentioning the Virgin. Terms such as "Blessed Virgin," "Holy, Pure and Glorious," "Pure and Undefiled Virgin," "Blessed Mother," "Our Lady," "Holy Virgin," and "Most Holy Virgin," were not infrequent in the writings of even some of the most "low-church" English Divines.<br /><br />Thus perhaps the statement "Protestantism, almost universally, denies it" may refer to what is known today in America as "Evangelical" rather than historic, confessional Protestantism?<br /><br />-StephenStephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14691199106409720583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-63317219367707667152010-01-17T03:00:31.287-05:002010-01-17T03:00:31.287-05:00Todd,
Yes, I see your point and I agree that it s...Todd,<br /><br />Yes, I see your point and I agree that it shouldn't cause Protestants any great angst when "Theotokos" is used. <br /><br />Thanks for the reply!<br /><br />AdamFuture Churchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03862214936693708244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-40396350708139091552010-01-17T02:44:42.114-05:002010-01-17T02:44:42.114-05:00Adam,
Thank you for your comments.
I do not disa...Adam,<br /><br />Thank you for your comments.<br /><br />I do not disagree with the point you are making.<br /><br />As my article indicates, I am not advocating the use of the termonology. Rather, I am simply saying that the term is not something that really should divide us from our Roman and Orthodox sisters and brothers in Christ.<br /><br />After all, though we may refrain from using the title (for some of the very reasons you mention), nevertheless, we do, in our own way (e.g., the two songs I made reference to), say the very same thing that our Orthodox and Roman sisters and brothers mean (at least officially) by that term.<br /><br />So, in our discussions with these other branches of Christ's Church, let us "argue" over more significant disagreements (perhaps some of those further doctrines concernign Mary).<br /><br />Thank you, again, for your comments!<br /><br />Todd+Todd Stepphttp://wesleyananglican.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-17646459031398492442010-01-17T02:22:30.929-05:002010-01-17T02:22:30.929-05:00Dr. Steppe,
I just found your blog and decided to...Dr. Steppe,<br /><br />I just found your blog and decided to comment, as this topic is quite dear to my heart. I was born Methodist, converted to Orthodoxy, and recently returned to Methodism. <br /><br />One of the things I've come to love about Wesleyanism is that we're able to take the best of the past, bring it forward, and express it in a way that makes sense to contemporary Christians. If the purpose of referring to Mary as "Mother of God" is to teach a Christological lesson, it would seem to me that there are better ways to teach the lesson. When people refer to "God" they tend to automatically assign eternally pre-existent concepts. I think we would all agree that Mary did not give birth to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For this reason, I have often thought that the term "Theotokos" lends itself more to modalism in the minds of most people; not Christological clarity. <br /><br />Also, even as Roman Catholics have that co-redemptrix business to worry about, there are some Orthodox prayers that would give any Protestant severe pause. The elevation of Mary's titles as a means by which to stress Christology is, in my opinion, not quite in keeping with our stated goal. Put another way, if we want people to understand Christology, I think we should explain Christology. If we want people to venerate and pray to Mary, we should use phrases like "Theotokos" and "Queen of Heaven." <br /><br />AdamFuture Churchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03862214936693708244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5373833544766917458.post-22490318230043641762010-01-15T20:42:32.053-05:002010-01-15T20:42:32.053-05:00Thank you, Daniel, for your comments.
I would s...Thank you, Daniel, for your comments. <br /><br />I would say you are correct about Vatican I.Todd Stepphttp://wesleyananglican.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com