Few mentions of the Theotokos among the apostles?

[Linda]

I'm sure this has been asked here before, but I did not see it.

Is there any thought as to why the Apostles did not refer to the Theotokos more often in their writings?

Why did St. Paul refer to himself as opposed to the Theotokos as someone to emulate, etc.?

Thank you

[Paul Cowan]

I'll take a stab at this and quickly jump out of the way for others to give the real answer.

The NT was focused on Christ. For the Theotokos to be mentioned as much as she was is remarkable. Very few of the others were as repeatedly mentioned. She is devoted an entire dialogue when she visits St. Elizabeth. She is mentioned during every significant (as if they are not all significant) experiences Christ had.

Pre-birth, birth, flight, return, first miracle, talking to his "mother and brothers", crucifiction, death, burial, resurrection, upper room. No other person can touch this many occurences.

I think St. Paul mentions himself in this passage perhaps because he was not present in the beginning with them and perhaps did not have the relationship with her as St. Peter and the others. So not knowing her he made mention of himself. Had he known her better, perhaps he might have.

I have heard people say, well the Bible doesn't say (X). or doesn't refer to (X). Perhaps had it, it would have been a larger stumbling block for us today? "Well, the Bible does not say I have to fast on Wednesdayos or Fridays or what I have to fast from." But Christ did say "when you fast...". So since people read it in the ommission, they read it as not important too.

Just because it is not there, does not mean it is not important. It does not mention stem cell research. But look at the controversary there.

Now I will jump very quickly out of the way.

Paul

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Linda and all,

Sprazdnikom!

This might be of some help as there is a lot of thought and actually a lot of tradition in "writings" about the Theotokas.

Here are some examples of words used by the Church Fathers to describe different "states." Saint Paul would have seen things in that sort of way.


Christadelfos (Christa´delphos) – of the brotherhood of Christ
Christeponymos (Christepo´nymos) – called by the name of Christ
Christogonos (Christo´gonos) – a child of Christ
Christodidaktos (Christodi´daktos) – taught by Christ
Christodochos (Christodo´chos) – a receiver of Christ
Christoeides (Christoede´s) – after the likeness of Christ
Christokinetos (Christoki´netos) – moved by Christ
Christokletos (Christo´kletos) – called by Christ
Christolatres (Christola´tres) – a worshiper of Christ
Christomathes (Christomathe´s) – a student of the things of Christ
Christomakar (Christoma´kar) – blessed by Christ
Christomimetos (Christomi´metos) – an imitator of Christ
Christomorfos (Christo´morphos) – one in Christ’s likeness
Christonomos (Christo´nomos) – governed by Christ
Christoprepes (Christoprepe´s) – in a manner befit*ting Christ


The (Theotokos) - Mother of God, I think is best encountered in the tradition of the Orthodox Church of the Seven Ecumencial Councils. The "Treasure of Blessings" to be experienced therein are often overwhelming, so reading things doesn't really convey the same sort of experience that is within the Church. Below is the Akathist Hymn to Our Most Holy Lady the Mother of God (Theotokos), prayed, sung in Church with others is a much fuller way I think.

Having secretly received the command, the Archangel hastened into Joseph's abode and spoke to the Holy Virgin. He Who bowed the Heavens with His descending, is wholly contained, yet unchanged in You. And seeing Him taking the likeness of a servant in your womb, I stand in amazement and cry unto you:

Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride [3 times].

In "context" - http://www.monachos.net/library/Akathist_Hymn_to_Our_Most_Holy_Lady_Mother_of_God_ (Theotokos)

I think Linda there are some English versions of the Akathist being sung by woman online. If you would like to hear some just let me know I'm sure they are available. Effie, Nina and others might know of some links.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Linda]

Thank you Paul and Matthew.

As a convert, I absolutely "get" the place of the Theotokos.

I was thinking how much easier it would be for my protestant friends to get it if there were more in scripture.

However, I realize that is just the natural result of "pernicious heresies."

I will simply keep praying.

In that same vein, though, I wonder why the Infancy Gospel of James (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html) was left out of the canon.

I'm sure there is plenty of info out there on that. I haven't had a chance to really research it yet.

Thank you so much again.

[Nina]

I was thinking how much easier it would be for my protestant friends to get it if there were more in scripture.



What if you try to tell your friends that those letters were aimed at the ex-pagan audience of communities where the Apostles lived, while traveling to spread the Good News?

The Apostles had to demolish paganism from their hearts and establish Christianity. That is why the main emphasis was placed on speaking about Christ. Because the pagans with their myths and culture could have been easily confused by many other figures in the picture. If the Apostles started to talk directly about Panagia they would have to explain a lot to those people who were still babies in faith (actually the very first babies in faith!), and who could just digest milk. Additionally to being babies in faith, they had no previous patterns and role models to follow like we do today.

Maybe the Apostles did not speak directly about Theotokos, in order to avoid a misunderstanding about Theotokos as the mother of the eternal God. Because God is eternal and does not have a mother. We know how easy it was for pagans to get confused in such matters since everything was possible in their myths. And they needed to leave that path and to cast away such mindset and embrace and follow a completely new (and the only) Way: Christ. And afterwards when they were enlightened they could digest and have a correct understanding of Theotokos. But first they needed to acquaint themselves with Christ, God; and be firmly grounded while having Christ in the center.

Also in regards to the question "Why did St. Paul refer to himself as opposed to the Theotokos as someone to emulate?" we need to mention that the world was pagan, gentile at that time (apart from Israel). For the pagans to have a change of heart they needed to see live an embodiment of Christian virtues. The pagan world was satiated with abstract and distant examples. A concrete person, who practiced and upheld the virtues (up to the point of self-sacrifice and self-denial) of Christianity was probably the best example and motivation for them to follow.

We need to understand the context of the period and know that Christianity was a radical change for the entire world. It was not easy at all and the Apostles had the difficult, but godly mission of converting many hearts and minds. Later on when Christianity was established and stronger, it was easier (and more peaceful time, without persecutions etc.) for the Holy Fathers to directly elaborate (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) about such matters like Christology, Theotokos etc. Because the audience not only was different (many inherited Christianity), but also the flock was much more educated about faith and God and with many examples of practical virtues, and especially with the example of the Holy Martyrs who shed their blood for the faith and Christ.

However as it is said above by other friends here, Theotokos was mentioned always directly, or indirectly. She is mentioned in the Gospels directly. Also the first icon we have about Christ and Theotokos was from Saint Luke etc.

[Max]

You may ask, "In his Epistles, why doesn't St. Paul mention the teachings of Jesus Christ as we find them in the Gospels?"

Were Jesus' other teachings besides "love for others" unimportant since Paul (and the other Apostles) didn't mention them in their letters?

In the same way, just because Paul doesn't mention Mary in his works doesn't mean she wasn't a vital part of the Gospel Message. In fact, St. Luke accompanied St. Paul on his second missionary journey and wrote a record of St. Paul's missionary work. St. Paul and St. Luke were obviously partners in the faith. Remember, it's St. Luke's Gospel that calls Mary "mother of my Lord" and gives ample account of St. Mary, even a lengthy prayer of hers.

[Linda]

I found a wonderful answer to this in The Orthodox Church; New Edition by Timothy Ware:


The doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been proclaimed as dogmas, for they belong to the public preaching of the Church; but the glorification of Our Lady belongs to the Church's inner Tradition:

It is hard to speak and not less hard to think about the mysteries which the Church keeps in the hidden depths of her inner consciousness...The Mother of God was never a theme of the public preaching of the Apostles; while Christ was preached on the housetops, and proclaimed for all to know in an initiatory teaching addressed to the whole world, the mystery of his Mother was revealed only to those who were within the Church...It is not so much an object of faith as a foundation of our hope, a fruit of faith, ripened in Tradition. Let us therefore keep silence, and let us not try to dogmatize about the supreme glory of the Mother of God.
(V. Lossky, 'Panagia', in The Mother of God, edited by E. L. Mascall...)

Thank you all for your patience and insight.

[Anthony]

Right, I think this is echoed by a number of Orthodox writers.

In connection with Nina's post, there were actually some early heretics who made the Mother of God into a kind of goddess; and this is mentioned by some fathers in connection with the church's earlier reticence on the subject. I can't remember the details now, but will look them up when I get back.

[Nina]

Yes Linda the passage you quote (from Met. Ware and his quotation of Lossky) is so beautiful and right.

As Lossky mentions, (you can also tell to your friends that) the Orthodox faith is based on two pillars: Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture originates from Holy Tradition - as we know we had about four centuries of Holy Tradition prior to creating the corpus of the New Testament, which emanated from the Holy Tradition. Therefore there are many things that are not in the Scripture, but are in the Tradition (which unfortunately is often ignored). In the Holy Tradition there are numerous references about the Theotokos.

Yes Anthony, I agree with you. I am very interested in the material you will share with us.

The Apostles had to show the greatest discernment in their apostolic mission. They had to focus and bring the total attention of the ex-pagans on Christ. When we have cases that the Apostles do not speak about the Theotokos, we know that it is according to their holy discernment inspired by the Holy Spirit, because the ex-pagans, who converted to Christianity were still babies in faith (as the Apostle has written) and this was an unprecedented conversion that happened with the birth of Christianity.

In some cases a detailed elaboration of the role of the Theotokos could have confused the pagan masses, who were already deeply involved in the worshiping of the female goddesses' cult, which had permeated the entire civilized world of the era. If we think about it, we notice immediately the importance of the female goddess cult. These in the pagan world (more than male gods) were patrons of the most crucial and vital aspects of human life.

For instance Vesta - hearth, home, family, state; Athena - wisdom, war, heroes, justice, civil law etc.; Hera - marriage; Aphrodite - love, beauty; Artemis - hunting; bow, arrow; Demeter - grain, fertility, nourisher of youth and verdant earth, health-giving, seasons; Muses - all range of creativity; Graces - grace, mirth, happiness, etc. and many other aspects. And here are not even mentioned the rest of the pagan deities of the areas where all the Apostles traveled to. As we can notice, every significant aspect of life was covered by a female deity, who in some cases was a virgin - and thus a quick-trap of confusion. The Apostles led by the Holy Spirit, told the world the Good News, revealing mysteries according to the spiritual maturity of the flock they addressed.

[Nina]

Dear Linda,

On October 3rd we celebrate one of the most beloved Saints, Dionisius the Aeropagite.

Saint Dionisius wrote in a letter to the Apostle Paul, about the meeting he had with the Theotokos:



During the lifetime of the Mother of God, St. Dionysius had journeyed from Athens to Jerusalem to meet Her. He wrote to his teacher the Apostle Paul: "I witness by God, that besides the very God Himself, there is nothing else filled with such divine power and grace. No one can fully comprehend what I saw. I confess before God: when I was with John, who shone among the Apostles like the sun in the sky, when I was brought before the countenance of the Most Holy Virgin, I experienced an inexpressible sensation. Before me gleamed a sort of divine radiance which transfixed my spirit. I perceived the fragrance of indescribable aromas and was filled with such delight that my very body became faint, and my spirit could hardly endure these signs and marks of eternal majesty and heavenly power. The grace from her overwhelmed my heart and shook my very spirit. If I did not have in mind your instruction, I should have mistaken Her for the very God. It is impossible to stand before greater blessedness than this which I beheld." Passage from the life of Saint Dionisus as it was sent by email to me from a friend. Emphasis by underline is mine.

[Demetrios Galanidis]

Hopefully we can source this directly on the Internet.

Thanks for posting this.

[Nina]

Hopefully we can source this directly on the Internet.


A friend emails me daily saints' lives of the day and different quotes from the Fathers. He emailed me the life of Saint Dionisius the Aeropagite (whom we commemorated yesterday), which is posted on monachos, on the Orthodox Saints thread here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=51238&postcount=76).

[Anthony]

I promised a few references in connection with Nina's point about the use of stories about the Mother of God by early heretics. So here we go. They are from the book "On the Dormition of Mary: early patristic homilies", published by SVS Press, translation and introduction by Brian E. Daley, S.J.

An example frrom the introduction is


the "Collyridians," a women's sect who, Epiphanius says, regarded [the Mother of God] as a goddess and celebrated a quasi-eucharistic liturgy in her honour



The following rather long extract is from John of Thessaloniki (early 7th century), who is preaching on the reasons for the rather late introduction of the Feast of the Dormition into the city. I think it is an interesting example of the caution exercised by the fathers, contrary to the impression one gets from some modern historians.



Not only this, but some people committed to writing the wonderful things that happened in her regard at that time. Practically every place under heaven celebrates every year the memory of her going to her rest, with the exception of only a few, including the region around this divinely protected city of Thessalonica. Why is this? Shall we condemn the carelessness or laziness of those who have gone before us? Surely we must not say or even think anything of the sort, since they and no one else left this excellent principle as a kind of law for their homeland: that we should celebrate in the Spirit the memory not only of our local saints, but of practically all who struggled for Christ, anywhere in the world, so that in these intercessory gatherings we might grow closer to God. Our forebears, then, were neither heedless nor lazy; yet although those who were present then [at Mary's death] described her end truthfully, we are told, mischievous heretics later corrupted their accounts by adding words of their own, and for this reason our ancestors distanced themselves from these accounts as not in accord with the Catholic church. For this reason, the feast [of the Dormition] passed, among them, into oblivion.

Do not be surprised at hearing that heretics have corrupted writings, since they have been caught doing similar things, from time to time, to the epistles of the divine Apostle and even to the holy Gospels! Yet we do not reject writings that contain the truth because of that fraud of theirs, so hateful to God; rather, we purify them of the bad seed that has been sown, and embrace what has truly been achieved for the glory of God by his saints, and commemorate these things in a way that pleases him and profits our souls. So, we find, our recent predecessors have done, as did the holy fathers who lived long before them - the latter when dealing with the ''individual travels" of the holy apostles Peter and Paul and Andrew and John, the former in the case of most of the acts of the Christ-bearing martyrs. For one must truly "remove the stones from the path", as Scripture says (Jer 50:20), so that the flock chosen by God may not stumble.

Since, then, it is very necessary for the good of this Christ-loving metropolis, in order that it lack no blessing, that the world's benefactress and lady, the ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, receive our sincere praise as we celebrate with spiritual joy the memory of her entry into divine rest, we have ourselves spent no small effort preparing to set before your devout ears - to awaken and to build up your souls - not everything we have found written, in different ways and in different books, about that event, but only what truly happened, what is remembered as having taken place, and what is witnessed until today by the existence of actual sites. We have gathered these testimonies together in love of truth and in fear of God, taking no account of fabricated stories, since these have been interpolated into the tradition by the malice of those who fabricated them. But having listened with beneficial compunction to the trule awe-inspiring and great wonders that took place, in a way really worthy of God's mother, at the time of her entering into holy rest, we will offer to that spotless lady, Mary Mother of God, thanks second only to God, and the praise that befits her, and we shall show ourselves worthy of her gifts by our good works.

[Kieran P.]

I'm sure this has been asked here before, but I did not see it.

Is there any thought as to why the Apostles did not refer to the Theotokos more often in their writings?

Why did St. Paul refer to himself as opposed to the Theotokos as someone to emulate, etc.?

Thank you

Hi Linda,

Our Lady was still alive when the disciples were writing their letters, so natural respect for her would have meant that they would be discreet. But they're NOT silent! If we look at Luke (1:39 onwards), when Mary meets Elizabeth, there are deliberate parallels in the language and descriptiveness used in 2 Samuel 6.

In Luke, Mary "sets out for Judah" and in 2 Sam David "sets out for Judah", we see in Luke the New Ark of the Covenent visits Elizabeth - "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43) - and in 2 Samuel, where the the Ark of the Covenant comes to David "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?" (2 Sam 6:9).

In Luke, Elizabeth says "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy" (Luke 1:44) and in 2 Sam 6, David "danced before the LORD with all his might" (2 Sam 6:14). Mary remained with Elizabeth for 3 months, the Ark "remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months" 2 Sam 6:11.

Go further to the Book of Revelations and you see that at the end of Chapter 11 and beginning of Chapter 12, we see in heaven the "Ark of the Covenant" (Rev 11:19), which was the Queen of Heaven "with child" (Rev 12:1).

Before the Church divided the Bible into chapters and verses, there was no dvision between the chapters and so the book - as written - describes the Ark of the Covenant as a "woman clothed with the sun" (Rev 12:1).

This is not original thinking, and I'm certain that there are many here who could expand even further, but the point is that Mary is discreetly in scripture, but powerfully also.

"Generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48). Among the Orthodox and Catholics, we can see that this has gladly been the case. Unfortunately, we don't see the same reverence among so-called "evangelicals" and allegedly "Bible Christians, leaving me to conclude that they are actually scandalised by the physical implications of the Incarnation.

God bless

[Michael Stickles]

"Generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48). Among the Orthodox and Catholics, we can see that this has gladly been the case. Unfortunately, we don't see the same reverence among so-called "evangelicals" and allegedly "Bible Christians, leaving me to conclude that they are actually scandalised by the physical implications of the Incarnation.

Actually, in my experience in various Protestant congregations, I've seen two primary reasons for the lack of reverence for Mary: (1) Cathlo-phobia, and (2) sola scriptura.

The general Protestant "Cathlo-phobia", kind of a residue from the Reformation, means anything Catholics believe -- especially if it seems of great importance -- will be held to a higher standard of proof before being accepted. The reliance on sola scriptura for supporting any doctrine (and the total discounting of early church traditions) means that veneration of Mary gets ditched, because the purely Scriptural supports are primarily metaphorical, and Protestants tend to be highly suspicious of metaphor that isn't made explicit in Scripture.

Throw in the fact that Protestants tend to not be able to distinguish "veneration" from "worship", meaning veneration of Mary is taken for prohibited idolatry, and you can see why they shy away from the very idea.

The "physical implications of the Incarnation" I think are mostly a non-issue, mainly because it wouldn't occur to most Protestants to even think in those terms.

In Christ,
Mike

[Kris]

Actually, in my experience in various Protestant congregations, I've seen two primary reasons for the lack of reverence for Mary: (1) Cathlo-phobia, and (2) sola scriptura.


In the Norwegian Lutheran church (originally built as such) I used to attend in London the words "Ave Maria" are written above the priest's entrance to the altar.

[Anthony]

Interesting. In my town there is a church called the Marienkirche. A Lutheran friend of mine refused to believe it was Protestant because "only Catholics believe in Mary".

[Kieran P.]

Hi Mike,


Actually, in my experience in various Protestant congregations, I've seen two primary reasons for the lack of reverence for Mary: (1) Cathlo-phobia, and (2) sola scriptura.



Nice reply - thanks for that.

What I'm referring to re: the evangelicals and so-called "Bible Christians" would be less the older Christian communities which proliferated after the Protestant "Deformation" (which were originally essentially Catholic in character but developed in distorted ways due to their innovative doctrines), but really the more extreme Fundamentalist strain which go explicitly from a subjective reading of scripture, so much so that historical and Traditional evidence is viewed by them with great suspicion.

Anything overtly "physical" - such as the veneration of icons, the belief in the Full Presence in the Holy Eucharist, the devotion to saints and Our Lady - concrete expressions of spiritual realities - cause them to flutter and reach for the Bible, usually negatively and resulting in a one dimensional, "truncated" and wholly unrealistic Christianity.

In fact, what it results in would make a whole other thread - possibly on another forum!

You're correct about your two points, and I've long held the view that Sola Scriptura is the single most dangerous policy for anyone who would look to find the truth.

But just to remain on-topic here, I think if we look closely enough, we'll find many references to Our Lady in scriptures.

God bless you - and keep well!

[Linda]

Actually, in my experience in various Protestant congregations, I've seen two primary reasons for the lack of reverence for Mary: (1) Cathlo-phobia, and (2) sola scriptura.

The general Protestant "Cathlo-phobia", kind of a residue from the Reformation, means anything Catholics believe -- especially if it seems of great importance -- will be held to a higher standard of proof before being accepted. The reliance on sola scriptura for supporting any doctrine (and the total discounting of early church traditions) means that veneration of Mary gets ditched, because the purely Scriptural supports are primarily metaphorical, and Protestants tend to be highly suspicious of metaphor that isn't made explicit in Scripture.

Throw in the fact that Protestants tend to not be able to distinguish "veneration" from "worship", meaning veneration of Mary is taken for prohibited idolatry, and you can see why they shy away from the very idea.

The "physical implications of the Incarnation" I think are mostly a non-issue, mainly because it wouldn't occur to most Protestants to even think in those terms.

In Christ,
Mike

Very insightful. This has been my experience also.