'One mediator between God and men'

[Bob Hendry]

Hello,

Last night on the PAX network, I heard an interview between Dr. Michael Horton, a protestant, and a Catholic apologist, first name Chris - I missed his last name. The topic was Catholic Marian Doctrine. At one point Dr. Horton referred to 1 Timothy 2:5 which he maintains invalidates the Catholic (and Orthodox?) practice of intercessory prayer to and through Mary and the Saints:


1Tim 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

How would (or should) a member of the OC respond?

He also mentioned the Council of Carthage in 348 AD, and its condemnation of this practice. When and why was this decision overturned??

Thanks - In Christ,

Bob Hendry

[Eugene]

Dear Bob,

The Mother of God and saints are not mediators, but the ones who can pray for us. The Sctiptures say that God listens to the prayers of righteous, so He listens to the prayers of the Theotokos and saints. They are intercessors rather than mediators. When we ask our friends to pray for us, we don't consider them mediators.

In Christ,
Evgeny

[Eugene]

Oh, one more thing. We don't get saved individually, but we join a community of saints in Christ where everyone cares for all the others. We Christians, whether those who live now, or those who lived before, are all constitute one Church - the Body of Christ, we are all united in this Body in love, and those who love each other always pray for each other.

In Christ,
Evgeny

[M.C. Steenberg]

Above it was written:


The Mother of God and saints are not mediators, but the ones who can pray for us. [...] They are intercessors rather than mediators. When we ask our friends to pray for us, we don't consider them mediators.

This is not, in point of fact, true. The services continually petition the Mother of God as 'mediator' or 'mediatrix' (Gr. mesitis), and the menaion has many hymns requesting that various saints 'mediate on our behalf with the Lord'. This is the ancient and common practice of the church. We must come to grips with what it means, but cannot deny it.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Bob:

As Dr. Steenberg has pointed out, the Orthodox do frequently refer to the mediation of the Mother of God and/or the saints. It is important, however, to understand the following:

1. The verse 1 Tim. 2:5 is referring to the man 'Christ Jesus' as the 'one' mediator because He is the only person to ever combine (without mixture or confusion) both humanity and divinity in one person, thus uniting human nature with the divine. It is in this sense that He is referred to as the 'one Mediator.'

2. The saints 'mediate' to Christ on our behalf. In other words, they mediate between us and the Mediator. This is often referred to as intercessory prayer. I know of no Christian, regardless of denomination, that does not believe in intercessory prayer. The difference is whether we believe those who have gone on before us may intercede or mediate on our behalf.

3. At the beginning of 1 Timothy 2, Paul exhorts Timothy to make prayers, supplications, and intercessions on behalf of all men. Clearly, Paul does not see this conflicting with his later statement that Christ is the one Mediator.

In regards to the Council of Carthage, I am not sure to what he is referring. More detail or further references would be helpful.

Aaron

[Herman Blaydoe]

The holy Apostle James tells us to: "Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." James 5:16. How much moreso does the prayer of she who already stands in the presence of her Son as one who has a motherly boldness?

[Basil Shannon]

Can anyone respond to the charge that the Council of Carthage in 348 AD condemned praying to the saints?

[Krist]

There is one proclaimed Gospel, that of Christ. The Church proclaims Christ's Gospel.

There is one suffering and saving Cross, that of Christ. The Church also (with its individual members) bears everyday a Cross that gives eternal life, not a different nor e separate one, but that of Christ's one.



There is ONE mediator, Christ. The Church also (and its individual members) mediates, and since they are in every thing similar to Christ, in a common suffering, common glorifying with Him, the Church within Christ, so the Church's mediation is ONE within Christ's mediation.

[Michael Astley]

Can anyone respond to the charge that the Council of Carthage in 348 AD condemned praying to the saints?

There are 138 canons of the Carthage councils. I, for one, would consider it something of a task to search through all of them, looking for something that may not actually be there. If somebody could provide us with a reference to the exact canon or decree to which the protestant speaker referred, I'm sure we would all be very grateful. In the meantime, I'll skim-read through a few and see if I can come up with anything.

[Michael Astley]

Well, I have read the titles of each of the canons of the various councils held at Carthage (the canons are all grouped together), and thus far, the only one that I have encountered that could even vaguely be read as condemnatory is canon 83, which sees to be saying that the setting up of devotional shrines in honour of martyrs in places where there are no relics or other connexion is to be discouraged, and that such shrines already in existence are to be removed or avoided by the faithful. Apart from this, I see nothing condeming asking the intercessions of Saints.

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Bob:

As Dr. Steenberg has pointed out, the Orthodox do frequently refer to the mediation of the Mother of God and/or the saints. It is important, however, to understand the following:

1. The verse 1 Tim. 2:5 is referring to the man 'Christ Jesus' as the 'one' mediator because He is the only person to ever combine (without mixture or confusion) both humanity and divinity in one person, thus uniting human nature with the divine. It is in this sense that He is referred to as the 'one Mediator.'

2. The saints 'mediate' to Christ on our behalf. In other words, they mediate between us and the Mediator. This is often referred to as intercessory prayer. I know of no Christian, regardless of denomination, that does not believe in intercessory prayer. The difference is whether we believe those who have gone on before us may intercede or mediate on our behalf.

3. At the beginning of 1 Timothy 2, Paul exhorts Timothy to make prayers, supplications, and intercessions on behalf of all men. Clearly, Paul does not see this conflicting with his later statement that Christ is the one Mediator.

In regards to the Council of Carthage, I am not sure to what he is referring. More detail or further references would be helpful.

Aaron


Yes a very old thread but one that always causes me mental challenges.


Mediate \Me"di*ate\, verb (used without an object) [imp. & p. p. {Mediated}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Mediating}.] [LL. mediatus, p. p. of mediare to mediate. See {Mediate}, adjective]

1. To be in the middle, or between two; to intervene. [R.]

2. To interpose between parties, as the equal friend of each, esp. for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation or agreement; as, to mediate between nations.


Intercessor \In'ter*ces"sor\, noun [L., a surety: cf. F. intercesseur.]

1. One who goes between, or intercedes; a mediator. (a) One who interposes between parties at variance, with a view to reconcile them. (b) One who pleads in behalf of another. --Milton.

2. (Eccl.) A bishop, who, during a vacancy of the see, administers the bishopric till a successor is installed.

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

intercessor

noun: a negotiator who acts as a link between parties [syn: {mediator}, {go-between}, {intermediator}, {intermediary}]

Are these two interchangeable? It seems they could be. If so, what is the difference between them?

It seems from the fullness of the faith we pray to Panaghia and the saints as well as Christ, and others considering the bare bones of the faith only pray to Christ? Is not the shortest distance between two points still a straight line? Multiple voices praying to Christ are better than my poorly ineffective one, I admit. But at the same time, if God is with me always (omnipresent) do I not also always have His ear?

Paul

[Michael Stickles]

Well, I have read the titles of each of the canons of the various councils held at Carthage (the canons are all grouped together), and thus far, the only one that I have encountered that could even vaguely be read as condemnatory is canon 83, which sees to be saying that the setting up of devotional shrines in honour of martyrs in places where there are no relics or other connexion is to be discouraged, and that such shrines already in existence are to be removed or avoided by the faithful. Apart from this, I see nothing condeming asking the intercessions of Saints.

I read through the text of all the Carthaginian canons, and did not find anything of relevance beyond what Michael mentioned.

Regarding Paul's question about "mediator" and "intercessor":


Are these two interchangeable? It seems they could be. If so, what is the difference between them?

From the way I've heard them used, there seem to be two differences. First, intercession seems to be more "directional" than mediation. That is, an intercessor approaches one party on behalf of another, while a mediator stands between the two and reaches out both ways to bring them together. Second, the terms imply different levels of status or authority. "Intercessor" merely implies someone that the party petitioned is willing to listen to, while "mediator" implies someone well-respected by both parties. These are just the usages as I've seen them, not necessarily proper definitions.


It seems from the fullness of the faith we pray to Panaghia and the saints as well as Christ, and others considering the bare bones of the faith only pray to Christ? Is not the shortest distance between two points still a straight line? Multiple voices praying to Christ are better than my poorly ineffective one, I admit. But at the same time, if God is with me always (omnipresent) do I not also always have His ear?

Maybe I'm off-base here, but I've never seen asking for the prayers of others (whether saints or not) as primarily a matter of giving my prayers greater force or better access to God's ear. Rather, for me it is a matter of humility, and of coming to God not as a lone person but as a member of His body. In reference to the body, Paul said (1 Cor. 12:26):


If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

To keep my own suffering or rejoicing secret between myself and God, and to not allow any others of the body to share in that suffering or rejoicing, is for me to put myself above and/or outside the body. That's not to judge others, who undoubtedly have their own reasons, but I know that when I seek for no one else to intercede for me on any non-trifling matter, the reason is almost always an individualistic pride.

In Christ,
Mike

[Herman Blaydoe]

Is not the shortest distance between two points still a straight line?

Um, as a former Navy-trained navigator, I have to comment here. The answer is "not necessarily". When plotting a course for a long journey, depending on the sort of map you use, a straight line will, indeed, result in a much LONGER trip, due to the differences of drawing on a 2 dimensional map and traveling on a 3 dimensional globe. Some things are counter-intuitive, but still true.


Multiple voices praying to Christ are better than my poorly ineffective one, I admit. But at the same time, if God is with me always (omnipresent) do I not also always have His ear?

Certainly. But not all prayer is created equal. The prayers of the RIGHTEOUS are of much avail according to the Apostle James. I suspect the prayers of the less than righteous might be less so. Better to ask the righteous to intercede on our behalf, even as we also pray on our own account. Many voices more easily heard than one. In networking, sending the same message along many paths makes sure it gets through.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Mike wrote:


To keep my own suffering or rejoicing secret between myself and God, and to not allow any others of the body to share in that suffering or rejoicing, is for me to put myself above and/or outside the body. That's not to judge others, who undoubtedly have their own reasons, but I know that when I seek for no one else to intercede for me on any non-trifling matter, the reason is almost always an individualistic pride.

This is excellent.

'Mediator' means, at its base, one who stands in the midst. It needn't necessarily mean 'in between', in the sense either of forcing a separation or pulling together. In the midst. Two or three come together.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Paul Cowan]

Above it was written:



This is not, in point of fact, true. The services continually petition the Mother of God as 'mediator' or 'mediatrix' (Gr. mesitis), and the menaion has many hymns requesting that various saints 'mediate on our behalf with the Lord'. This is the ancient and common practice of the church. We must come to grips with what it means, but cannot deny it.

INXC, Matthew


From the way I've heard them used, there seem to be two differences. First, intercession seems to be more "directional" than mediation. That is, an intercessor approaches one party on behalf of another, while a mediator stands between the two and reaches out both ways to bring them together. Second, the terms imply different levels of status or authority. "Intercessor" merely implies someone that the party petitioned is willing to listen to, while "mediator" implies someone well-respected by both parties. These are just the usages as I've seen them, not necessarily proper definitions.


ok, So, We call the Theotokos a mediatrix because she stands between us and God and reaches out to both to bring us together and is respected by God and man. We call Saints intercessors because they approach God on our behalf and is the party God is willing to listen to.

The Theotokos is a two way street between us and God yet the Saints are a one way street only to God.


1 Timothy 2
Pray for All Men
1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

I'm sorry, I need the special key. The one that unlocks my brain to say Ahhaaa!. If Jesus is the One Mediator, how can the Theotokos also be a mediator. Unless the "One Mediator" is a position of "the first" and the Theotokos is in a position of the next in line as a mediator just not on equal footing with Jesus?

SO by asking the Saints and Her to pray for us then all prayers would go through Jesus as the "One Mediator" or only door or Holy upside down funnel then to God.

God
Jesus
Theotokos
Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint
Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Me


Something like this?

Paul

[Nicolaj]

and dear Brethren,

The way we see the Theotokos in our orthodox believing and in the teaching of the Holy Church is the very role she has as being the Mother of Christ the King! In the sight of the Apostels and the early Christians the role she had after her Son brought her to Heaven was the role of the Mother of the heavenly King. Inb the Orient if you wanted something from your King or local Lord and there wasn't a chance to get hands on him personally you would go to his mother and ask her to intercede by her son on your behalf. And this practice you already find in the bible and it was normal for early christianity to see the most Holy Theotokos in this role!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[Amy]

To keep my own suffering or rejoicing secret between myself and God, and to not allow any others of the body to share in that suffering or rejoicing, is for me to put myself above and/or outside the body. That's not to judge others, who undoubtedly have their own reasons, but I know that when I seek for no one else to intercede for me on any non-trifling matter, the reason is almost always an individualistic pride.

In Christ,
Mike

Mike, I just wanted to second what's already been said. This is an excellent point; I appreciate you sharing it.

Regarding the main topic, what are the differences, if any, in the original Greek?

[Fr Stephen Maxfield]

The system you suggest implies that all metioned are utterly distinct individuals who have no connection with each other.

Perhaps think about it in a different way. All who receive Communion have received the life of God within them. They are distinct but also part of the Body of Christ. Is it not possible therefore for a saint to mediate yet for that mediation to be both the mediation of the saint AND the mediation of Christ Himself!?

The issue of the Energies of God are closely involved in this process.

Fr Stephen Maxfield


ok, So, We call the Theotokos a mediatrix because she stands between us and God and reaches out to both to bring us together and is respected by God and man. We call Saints intercessors because they approach God on our behalf and is the party God is willing to listen to.

The Theotokos is a two way street between us and God yet the Saints are a one way street only to God.



I'm sorry, I need the special key. The one that unlocks my brain to say Ahhaaa!. If Jesus is the One Mediator, how can the Theotokos also be a mediator. Unless the "One Mediator" is a position of "the first" and the Theotokos is in a position of the next in line as a mediator just not on equal footing with Jesus?

SO by asking the Saints and Her to pray for us then all prayers would go through Jesus as the "One Mediator" or only door or Holy upside down funnel then to God.

God
Jesus
Theotokos
Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint
Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Me


Something like this?

Paul

[Michael Stickles]

Regarding the main topic, what are the differences, if any, in the original Greek?

I don't see any - the online interlinear I checked showed the Greek text as the same in the Byzantine, Nestle-Aland, and Textus Receptus versions.

In looking that up, though, I noted the verse in its context (1 Timothy 2:1-7):


I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

It is interesting that Paul mentions Christ being the one mediator in the context of urging that prayers be offered up for everyone, and with specific reference to His sacrifice. The latter point seems to imply that "mediator" here is referring specifically to the mediator of a covenant, as Christ is mentioned being in Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, and 12:24. This is one of the definitions of the Greek word used:


Mesites

one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant
a medium of communication, arbitrator

The former seems to show that Paul is saying that our ability to intercede for men is because of Christ's mediation of the new covenant between God and mankind. Well, the saints' mediation on our behalf is also only effective because of Christ's mediation of the new covenant on our behalf. And since the saints' mediation is according to definition 2 (medium of communication) and the first part of definition 1 (intervenes ... to make or restore peace and friendship), it does not contradict Christ being the one mediator of the new covenant, which makes all other mediation possible.

In Christ,
Mike

[Owen Jones]

First of all, Holy Scripture is the book of the Church. So it is difficult to debate the meaning of a particular text with a Protestant, apart from that issue being addressed. Orthodoxy understands the symbolic meaning of a text is laid over the literal/historical meaning, whereas the Protestant will allow a symbolic meaning only if it suits his purpose, e.g., "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" has only a symbolic meaning for a Protestant, and what the Protestant means by symbolic meaning is, quite literally, no meaning.

[Michael Stickles]

First of all, Holy Scripture is the book of the Church. So it is difficult to debate the meaning of a particular text with a Protestant, apart from that issue being addressed. Orthodoxy understands the symbolic meaning of a text is laid over the literal/historical meaning, whereas the Protestant will allow a symbolic meaning only if it suits his purpose, e.g., "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" has only a symbolic meaning for a Protestant, and what the Protestant means by symbolic meaning is, quite literally, no meaning.

Actually, in my experience I've found that many Protestants are quite comfortable with Scriptures having layers of meaning - literal, historical, symbolic, figurative, etc. And symbolic meaning most definitely does not mean "no meaning" for them; it becomes a "focus point" for thinking about (or even contemplating, though most would not use that term) the thing or idea symbolized. There are, of course, many others for whom your characterization might be fairly apt.

The real problem is what you mentioned in your first sentence. In Orthodoxy, Scripture is the book of the Church; or, to put it another way, the Scriptures came from the Church. For most Protestants, the Church is to be the embodiment of what Scripture portrays, so the Church comes from Scripture. Hence, interpreting Scripture through the lens of the Church is nonsense to the average Protestant, who would insist rather on interpreting the Church through the lens of Scripture (I've tried pointing out the inconsistencies in that view to Protestant friends, but usually it goes nowhere).

In Christ,
Mike

[Linda]

...interpreting Scripture through the lens of the Church is nonsense to the average Protestant, who would insist rather on interpreting the Church through the lens of Scripture...

Excellent. Very well put.

[Shawn Lazar]

I find the debate between Protestants and Orthodox on interpreting Scriptures to be a straw man. The Bible is a book, and can be interpreted and read as such according to the normal rules (grammatical-historical) of whatever language it is written in (hebrew, aramaic, greek). When the Bible says that David was anointed king over Israel (2 Sam 5:3), anyone in or outside of the church can understand what that means. Yes, there are difficult passages in Scripture, but by and large, the thrust of the Bible can be understood by all. Hence Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants have a tremendous amount of theological agreement, insofar as all are Chalcedonian in their Christology, etc.

Rather than complain that Protestants "just don't get it" because they're Protestants, why not actually try to interpret Scripture together? That is something Orthodox people seem hesitant to do. As Alexander Schmemann said: "There is no greater tragedy in our Church than the almost total ignorance by her members of the Holy Scriptures, and, what is worse, our virtually total indifference towards them." (Great Lent, p. 41) If we take the issue of whether or not entreating the saints violates the principle that Jesus alone is the one mediator between God and man, lets not dismiss the Protestant case without also wrestling with the witness of Scripture.

[Linda]

As a Protestant for 40 years, I still think the quote from Mike Stickles is just plain accurate, even if it isn't politically correct.

Also, I truly do not believe anyone here is dismissing anything or anyone, just stating what his experience has been.

Peace

[Andrew]

I find the debate between Protestants and Orthodox on interpreting Scriptures to be a straw man. The Bible is a book, and can be interpreted and read as such according to the normal rules (grammatical-historical) of whatever language it is written in (hebrew, aramaic, greek). When the Bible says that David was anointed king over Israel (2 Sam 5:3), anyone in or outside of the church can understand what that means. Yes, there are difficult passages in Scripture, but by and large, the thrust of the Bible can be understood by all. Hence Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants have a tremendous amount of theological agreement, insofar as all are Chalcedonian in their Christology, etc.

Rather than complain that Protestants "just don't get it" because they're Protestants, why not actually try to interpret Scripture together? That is something Orthodox people seem hesitant to do. As Alexander Schmemann said: "There is no greater tragedy in our Church than the almost total ignorance by her members of the Holy Scriptures, and, what is worse, our virtually total indifference towards them." (Great Lent, p. 41) If we take the issue of whether or not entreating the saints violates the principle that Jesus alone is the one mediator between God and man, lets not dismiss the Protestant case without also wrestling with the witness of Scripture.

Protestants need to wrestle with the witness of the flesh and blood of Christ, which is the Church, before they can come to a proper understanding of Scripture. Holy Scripture is an ecclesial network of texts for the edification of the faithful. It points towards Life in Christ, and those who truly live within Christ can interpret it best. The holy men who have actually seen God can determine what is meant in the the Epistles and other parts of Scripture better than we can as academically trained westerners thrice removed from the context of the holy men who wrote the Scriptures.

And again, we only use the Scriptures because the men who wrote them were transfigured by Christ... they lived with Him and martyred themselves for Him, and that is why the canon of Scripture is such. All the New Testament books were written by those who saw Christ and became saints (deified). Within their Epistles you can see clear references to the ecclesial reality of the Church - the Church hierarchy, the sacramental life, ascetical communities, and interior prayer (and many teachings, especially of Saint John the Theologian, on divinization within Christ). But we pass these over because we don't have the rightly renewed mind and heart of those who are illumined.

The Bible is not easy to understand. But in the light of the men who truly live the Gospel today, we can understand it better, by God's grace.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

In the above, Shawn wrote:

I find the debate between Protestants and Orthodox on interpreting Scriptures to be a straw man. The Bible is a book, and can be interpreted and read as such according to the normal rules (grammatical-historical) of whatever language it is written in (hebrew, aramaic, greek). When the Bible says that David was anointed king over Israel (2 Sam 5:3), anyone in or outside of the church can understand what that means. Yes, there are difficult passages in Scripture, but by and large, the thrust of the Bible can be understood by all.

I'm afraid that this is not really borne out by history - though I agree with the assertion that in some discussions, 'straw man' arguments are used to characterise others' positions as something they might not in fact be. But that difficulty set to one side, I do think that even the content of this comment reveals problems with its conclusion. For most Orthodox readers, the concept that 'the Bible is a book, and can be interpreted and read as such according to the normal rules (grammatical-historical) of whatever language it is written in (hebrew, aramaic, greek)' is not one of primary significance in understanding its meaning - where as in the interpretive framework being used to make this statement, it is. A specific example cited was:


When the Bible says that David was anointed king over Israel (2 Sam 5:3), anyone in or outside of the church can understand what that means.

But is this true? To some degree, the historical question of one man's political promotion (David being anointed king) is neither here nor there to scriptural meaning. In and of itself, as 'a book', this passage says nothing of the elements that are of primary significance in Orthodox reading: David is Christ, and his anointing as king is an icon of the Son's divinity and sovereignty over the cosmos, which as King he created. The nation of Israel is the Church, for whom the Son is made ruler by the Cross which plants him at its head; but the tomb which, empty, becomes his throne; by the ascension into the heavens which makes his earthly throne the eternal throne of his Father. That Israel is not a bloodline or tribe, but all humanity, is the message of the Spirit's transformation of tongues and perceptions at the Pentecost, which brings Christ's headship to the whole human race - the 'new Israel'. So 2 Samuel 5.3 is a deeply Christological and soteriological passage; and yet, none of this is obvious in the text as 'a book', and I might question whether, with respect to the true meaning of the passage, 'anyone in or outside of the church can understand what that means'.

This thread really isn't about readings of the scriptures, per se, however - and to bring things back on to the topic, I would just say that the question of interpreting 'mediator', and Christ as the 'one mediator', cannot be 'simply read' out of the text any more than the above passage from Samuel.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Shawn,

Your reference to a very small part of Fr. Alexander Schmemann commentaries does not reflect his intentions when he said:
"There is no greater tragedy in our Church than the almost total ignorance by her members of the Holy Scriptures, and, what is worse, our virtually total indifference towards them." (Great Lent, p. 41)

Do keep in mind that it is mentioned that "Schmemann draws on the Church's sacramental and liturgical tradition to suggest the meaning of lent in our life." Indeed the entire "booklet" and your use of some of the text reveals that we could not and more importantly should not even attempt to interpret Scripture together. The reason why is because your method is much different than that of the Church.

Just before lent and during lent in the Orthodox Church it is very common to hear things like:

Saturday before Cheesefare (aka "Forgiveness Sunday")

Kontakion, tone 8

As preachers of piety repressing impiety,
You explained the assembly of the God-bearing Fathers
Making them shine to all under the sun.
By their prayers, keep all who glorify and magnify Thee in perfect peace,
Singing to Thee, O Lord, Alleluia.

As such Fr. Alexander Schmemann's comments should be seen in that spirit, I mean that he is following the spirit as a preacher of piety repressing impiety. Indeed after referencing some lenten hymnography, he mentions that " very few people understand the beauty and depth of this lenten hymnography." He would be among the first to say that he does not understand the beauty and depth etc.

Within the text Fr. Alexander Schmemann also mentions "the martyrs that are invoked and praised in special hymns every day in lent".

He is not ignorant then or now of the witness of many Orthodox Christian martyrs, do you know the type from the villages? The ones that couldn't read or write yet had been crucified on the walls of Orthodox Churches. For your normal rules (grammatical-historical) of whatever language see the most recent Russian Orthodox martyrs.

I believe we should dismiss the Protestant case without also wrestling with the witness of Scripture.

Here is Fr. Alexander Schmemann's "booklet" online should anyone like to read it in fuller context.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jgmnechszvcC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=there+is+no+greater+tragedy+in+our+church+than+ the+almost&source=web&ots=HAN-naEwIY&sig=1K4zkHngvjJgEkhy_U1g4g8u0Ic#PPP1,M1

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Herman Blaydoe]

Rather than complain that Protestants "just don't get it" because they're Protestants, why not actually try to interpret Scripture together? That is something Orthodox people seem hesitant to do.
If Holy Scripture is so self-evident and easy to "interpret", then why don't most Protestants recognize that the Theotokos is worthy of reverence? Why do many not believe that bread and wine become the very Body and Blood of Christ? Why do so many believe that "salvation" is an altar call instead of a life-long journey? Why have so many discarded the sacraments? It is all right there in the Bible, why don't they see it?

I have tried to "interpret Scripture together" with Protestants. That comment alone shows the vast chasm between us. Orthodox Christians do not "interpret" Scripture. We live it. I've been on both sides. It is very difficult to explain to someone who is outside. We are not all immigrants fresh off the boat, simply ignorant of what Protestantism is. Some of us have measured it and weighed it and have found it wanting. It lacks the fullness of the Orthodox Church. It has some things that are good, but not everything that is needful.

What would a Protestant interpretation add to Scripture that Orthodoxy "needs"? We have Holy Scripture, we have the Apostolic Witness, we have the wisdom of the Fathers, we have the Sacraments, we have the Holy Spirit. Fr. Alexander is not the end-all and be-all of Orthodox theology. Even the most "ignorant" Orthodox Christian has lived the essence of Holy Scripture if they attended Church, even if they never opened a Bible in their life, even if they cannot read. It has been all around them, it has permeated almost every aspect of their lives and communities. The heros of the Bible provided their bed-time stories, their prayers were the Psalms. They might not know who Zerubbabel was, but they know who Christ is.

Again, there is certainly much within the teachings of Protestantism that is right and true and good, but there are a lot of other things that have been been discarded. What is right and good and true is already found in the teachings of the Orthodox Church for those who look for it, and it has all the things Protestantism has lost over the ages.

Come and see. The Word of God is not a book, He is a Person. He is not correctly or completely known simply by reading about Him. We must MEET Him, encounter Him, fill ourselves with Him so that He can make us whole. Some things cannot be explained or read about, they can only be experienced.

[Nicolaj]

Dear Brethren!

Following the discussion here and the fact that it is drifting a bit out of intentions I would like to mark a few things.

As it is written it isn't up to us to give our prayers quality. What quality could we add to our dingy prayers, not knowing what to say or ask for in a proper way? Therefore it is that we ask the ones who departed to heaven already, for their intercession. And the Greek word can also be transferred to advocate, which completes the idea of us praying with the Saints and the most Holy Theotokos, for we don not know how to ask properly.

Father Schmemann did write his words and as all words written by men they are just photograph of a moment in time. No point to be upset about but a point he marked where we could ask ourself, what about me, how do I care about the Scriptures, do I spend enough time exploring them etc.

Herman you are right, why discussing the scriptures with those who, when they don't agree just open up a new protestant church for their own believing and understanding of the scriptures. And also I think it an waste of time discussing with RC about their view of the Bible, as they also don't understand much about the orthodox attitude towards the scriptures. Much better is every minute spend studying the scriptures myself!!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

[David Naess]

The question that I ask myself these days when it comes to this issue is:

"Just what do all of us protestants/former protestants mean when we profess 'the communion of saints' every Sunday?"

Having been brought up as a Lutheran, this always seemed to be a rather 'fuzzy' proclomation of faith.

[Owen Jones]

Our worship services make it possible for Biblical ignoramuses and lazy louts like myself to know what I need to know, and follow what I need to follow, and pray the way I need to pray, and I don't think there is a serious deficit with that approach, when I know that the priest and the hierarchs and monastics especially are studying and praying the Scriptures and meditating on its meaning 24/7 for me. Yes, I suppose it would be better if we all knew our Scripture better, but I have long thought that this criticism of the Catholic Faith goes way overboard, especially when juxtaposed with people who have every other line in their Bibles underlined, and who can quote at length, and yet do not seem to have any real understanding of the text other than as a defense mechanism, and something that puffs up with pride with their vast knowledge.

Regarding the thread, this is one of those topics that is so all-inclusive, because who is the Christ who is the mediator? And is not the Word of God Christ Himself, not just words on a page, as holy as they are?

[Owen Jones]

"David is Christ, and his anointing as king is an icon of the Son's divinity and sovereignty over the cosmos, which as King he created. The nation of Israel is the Church, for whom the Son is made ruler by the Cross which plants him at its head; but the tomb which, empty, becomes his throne; by the ascension into the heavens which makes his earthly throne the eternal throne of his Father. That Israel is not a bloodline or tribe, but all humanity, is the message of the Spirit's transformation of tongues and perceptions at the Pentecost, which brings Christ's headship to the whole human race - the 'new Israel'. So 2 Samuel 5.3 is a deeply Christological and soteriological passage; and yet, none of this is obvious in the text as 'a book', and I might question whether, with respect to the true meaning of the passage, 'anyone in or outside of the church can understand what that means'."

This quote reflects the mind of the Fathers...It requires more than just learning and applying a method of interpretation, but a different way of seeing...

[Robert Hegwood]

As noted the schematic below betokens a fractured individualitic notion of the intercession of the Theotokos and the saints and ourselves as well. An organic paradigm might be more help fully. The Church is the body of Christ...all of its members are not just members of the head but of each other as well. All the direction of the body by the head is carried out through the body and its several members (however finely one desires to mince them from joint to cell). There is no connection from the head to the foot that bypasses the intervening body. Now with respect to the Theotokos if Christ is likened as the Head of the Body, then we might reckon her as the neck. Everything the Head does for the body is communicated via the neck. So we might say the neck mediates between the head and the body for every impluse to govern the life and health of the body pass through the neck, though the neck orginates none of the life and governance.

Christ works in His body through His body and our union to Him as His Body is in union with that particular member the neck, who is also part of the body but yet is that specially part by whom the Head and Body are joined as one at every level.

With regard to the Saints we know that death has no power to sunder the body of Christ. If I injure my left hand, my whole body moves to give aide and comfort to that hand. The right hand cradles it and applies bandages, the legs and move to a place where medicines and bandages can be found, the trunk braces and support the injured limb so that it can be tended, the neck tilts to allow the head to gaze upon the wound and direct all ministrations. So the whole body acts as one...a living organic intercession from top to bottom, the injury of one being as the injury of all, and by all being cared for and all under the direction of the head whose life and will is made manifest in and through the ministrations (however large or small) by the rest of the body.





ok, So, We call the Theotokos a mediatrix because she stands between us and God and reaches out to both to bring us together and is respected by God and man. We call Saints intercessors because they approach God on our behalf and is the party God is willing to listen to.

The Theotokos is a two way street between us and God yet the Saints are a one way street only to God.



I'm sorry, I need the special key. The one that unlocks my brain to say Ahhaaa!. If Jesus is the One Mediator, how can the Theotokos also be a mediator. Unless the "One Mediator" is a position of "the first" and the Theotokos is in a position of the next in line as a mediator just not on equal footing with Jesus?

SO by asking the Saints and Her to pray for us then all prayers would go through Jesus as the "One Mediator" or only door or Holy upside down funnel then to God.

God
Jesus
Theotokos
Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint
Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint Saint
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends Friends
Me


Something like this?

Paul

[Paul Cowan]

Robert,


As noted the schematic below betokens a fractured individualitic notion of the intercession of the Theotokos and the saints and ourselves as well. An organic paradigm might be more help fully.

Indeed. I appreciate this view much better. Thank you.