From her [Mary's] example issues a silent blessing upon all generations, and her name and memory are, and ever will be, inseparable from the holiest mysteries and benefits of faith. For this reason her name is even wrought into the Apostles' Creed, in the simple and chaste words: "Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary."
The Catholic church, however, both Latin and Greek, did not stop with this. After the middle of the fourth century it overstepped the wholesome biblical limit, and transformed the "mother of the Lord" into a mother of God, the "humble handmaid of the Lord" into a queen of heaven, the "highly favored" into a dispenser of favors, the "blessed among women" into an intercessor above all women, nay, we may almost say, the redeemed daughter of fallen Adam, who is nowhere in Holy Scripture excepted from the universal sinfulness, into a sinlessly holy co-redeemer. At first she was acquitted only of actual sin, afterward even of original; though the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin was long contested, and was not established as an article of faith in the Roman church till 1854. Thus the veneration of Mary gradually degenerated into the worship of Mary; and this took so deep hold upon the popular religious life in the Middle Age, that, in spite of all scholastic distinctions between latria, and dulia, and hyperdulia, Mariolatry practically prevailed over the worship of Christ. Hence in the innumerable Madonnas of Catholic art the human mother is the principal figure, and the divine child accessory. The Romish devotions scarcely utter a Pater Noster without an Ave Maria, and turn even more frequently and naturally to the compassionate, tender-hearted mother for her intercessions, than to the eternal Son of God, thinking that in this indirect way the desired gift is more sure to be obtained. To this day the worship of Mary is one of the principal points of separation between the Graeco-Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism. It is one of the strongest expressions of the fundamental Romish error of unduly exalting the human factors or instruments of redemption, and obstructing, or rendering needless, the immediate access of believers to Christ, by thrusting in subordinate mediators. Nor can we but agree with nearly all unbiased historians in regarding the worship of Mary as an echo of ancient heathenism. It brings plainly to mind the worship of Ceres, of Isis, and of other ancient mothers of the gods; as the worship of saints and angels recalls the hero-worship of Greece and Rome. Polytheism was so deeply rooted among the people, that it reproduced itself in Christian forms. The popular religious want had accustomed itself even to female deities, and very naturally betook itself first of all to Mary, the highly favored and blessed mother of the divine-human Redeemer, as the worthiest object of adoration....
In striking contrast with this healthful and sober representation of Mary in the canonical Gospels are the numerous apocryphal Gospels of the third and fourth centuries, which decorated the life of Mary with fantastic fables and wonders of every kind, and thus furnished a pseudo-historical foundation for an unscriptural Mariology and Mariolatry. The Catholic church, it is true, condemned this apocryphal literature so early as the Decrees of Gelasius [bishop of Rome]; yet many of the fabulous elements of it - such as the names of the parents of Mary, Joachim (instead of Eli, as in Luke iii.23) and Anna, the birth of Mary in a cave, her education in the temple, and her mock marriage with the aged Joseph - passed into the Catholic tradition....
The titles given to Mary [in the Middle Ages] were far more numerous than the titles given to Christ and every one of them is extra-biblical except the word "virgin." An exuberant fancy allegorized references to her out of all sorts of texts, never dreamed of by their writers. She was found referred to in almost every figurative expression of the Old Testament which could be applied to a pure, human being. To all the Schoolmen, Mary is the mother of God, the queen of heaven, the clement queen, the queen of the world, the empress of the world, the mediatrix, the queen of the ages, the queen of angels, men and demons, the model of all virtues...
Monks, theologians, and poets strain the Latin language to express their admiration of her beauty and benignity, her chastity and heavenly glory. Her motherhood and virginity are alike subjects of eulogy. The conception of physical grace, as expressed when the older Notker of St. Gall called her "the most beautiful of all virgins," filled the thought of the Schoolmen and the peasant. Albertus Magnus devotes a whole chapter of more than thirty pages of two columns each to the praise of her corporal beauty. In his exposition of Canticles 1:15, "Behold thou art fair, my love," he comments upon the beauty of her hair, her shoulders, her lips, her nose, her feet, and other parts of her body. Bonaventura's hymns in her praise abound in tropical expressions, such as "she is more ruddy than the rose and whiter than the lily." Wernher of Tegernsee about 1178 sang:
Her face was so virtuous, her eyes so Bright,
Her manner so pure, that, among all women,
None could with her compare.
In a remarkable passage, Bernard represents her in the celestial places drawing attention to herself by her form and beauty so that she attracted the King himself [God] to desire her. [Schaff explains in a footnote that the term Bernard uses for "desire" is "the usual word for lust".] ...
The Canticles was regarded as an inspired anthology of Mary's excellences of body and soul. Damiani represents God as inflamed with love for her and singing its lines in her praise. She was the golden bed on which God, weary in His labor for men and angels, lay down for repose. The later interpretation was that the book [Song of Solomon] is a bridal song for the nuptials between the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Bernard's homilies on this portion of Scripture are the most famous collection of the Middle Ages. Alanus ab Insulis, who calls Mary the "tabernacle of God, the palace of the celestial King," says that it [Song of Solomon] refers to the Church, but in an especial and most spiritual way to the glorious virgin. Writer after writer, preacher after preacher, took up this favorite portion of the Old Testament. An abbess represented the Virgin as singing to the Spirit: "My beloved is mine and I am his. He will tarry between my breasts." The Holy Spirit responded, "Thy breasts are sweeter than honey."
To Mary was given a place of dignity equal or superior to Christ as the friend of the sinful and unfortunate and the guide of souls to heaven. Damiani called her "the door of heaven," the window of paradise. Anselm spoke of her as "the vestibule of universal propitiation, the cause of universal reconciliation, the vase and temple of life and salvation for the world." A favorite expression was "the tree of life" - lignum vitae - based upon Prov. iii:8. Albertus Magnus, in the large volume he devotes to Mary's virtues, gives no less than forty reasons why she should be worshipped, authority being found for each one in a text of Scripture. The first reason was that the Son of God honors Mary. This accords with the fifth commandment, and Christ himself said of his mother, "I will glorify the house of my glory," Isa. lx:7; house, according to the Schoolman, being intended to mean Mary. The Bible teems with open and concealed references to her. Albertus ascribed to her thirty-five virtues, on all of which he elaborates at length, such as humility, sincerity, benignity, omnipotence, and modesty. He finds eighty-one biblical names indicative of her functions and graces. Twelve of these are taken from things in the heavens. She is a sun, a moon, a light, a cloud, a horizon, an aurora. Eight are taken from things terrestrial. Mary is a field, a mountain, a hill, a stone. Twenty-one are represented by things pertaining to water. She is a river, a fountain, a lake, a fish-pond, a cistern, a torrent, a shell. Thirty-one are taken from biblical figures. Mary is an ark, a chair, a house, a bed, a nest, a furnace, a library. Nine are taken from military and married life. Mary is a castle, a tower, a wall. It may be interesting to know how Mary fulfilled the office of a library. In her, said the ingenious Schoolman, were found all the books of the Old Testament, of all of which she had plenary knowledge as is shown in the words of her song which run, "as was spoken by our fathers." [Luke 1:55] She also had plenary knowledge of the Gospels as is evident from Luke ii:19: "Mary kept all these sayings in her heart."...
Bonaventura equals Albertus in ransacking the heavens and the earth and the waters for figures to express Mary's glories and there is a tender chord of mysticism running through his expositions which is adapted to move all hearts and to carry the reader, not on his guard, away from the simple biblical statements. The devout Franciscan frequently returns to this theme and makes Mary the subject of his verse and sermons. He exhausts the vocabulary for words in her praise. She is prefigured in Jacob's ladder, Noah's ark, the brazen serpent, Aaron's rod, the star of Balaam, the pot of manna, Gideon's horn, and other objects of Hebrew history. To each of these his Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary devotes poetic treatment extending in cases to more than one hundred lines and carrying the reader away by their affluence of imagination and the sweetness of the rhythm.
Imitating the Book of Psalms, Bonaventura wrote two psalteries, each consisting of one hundred and fifty parts. Each part of the Minor Psaltery consists of four lines, its opening lines being "Hail Virgin, tree of life; Hail Virgin, door of liberty; Hail Virgin, dear to God; Hail Virgin, light of the world; Hail Virgin, harbor of life; Hail Virgin, most beautiful." In the Greater Psaltery, Bonaventura paraphrases the one hundred and fifty psalms and introduces into each one Mary's name and her attributes, revelling in ascriptions of her preeminence over men and angels. Here are several selections, but no selection can give any adequate idea of the liberty taken with Scripture. The first Psalm is made to run, "Blessed is the man who loves thee, O Virgin Mary. Thy grace will comfort his soul." The twenty-third runs, "The Lord directs me, O Virgin mother of God - genetrix dei - because thou hast turned towards me His loving countenance." The first verse of Psalm 121 reads, "I have lifted up my eyes to thee, O Mother of Christ, from whom solace comes to all flesh."...
So also Bonaventura pronounces Mary the mediator between us and Christ. As God is the lord of revenge - Dominus ultionum,- he says in his Greater Psaltery, so Mary is the mother of compassion. She presents the requests of mortals to the Second Person of the Trinity, softening his wrath and winning favors which otherwise would not be secured....
Where the thinkers and singers of the age were so ardent in their worship of Mary, what could be expected from the mass of monks and from the people!...
In few respects are the worship and teaching of the Middle Ages so different from those of the Protestant churches as in the claims made for Mary and the regard paid to her. If we are to judge by the utterances and example of [Popes] Pius IX. and Leo XIII., the mediaeval cult still goes on in the Roman communion. And more recently [Pope] Pius X. shows that he follows his predecessors closely. In his encyclical of Jan. 15, 1907, addressed to the French bishops, he says, "In full confidence that the Virgin Immaculate, daughter of our Father, mother of the Word, spouse of the Holy Ghost, will obtain for you from the most holy and adorable Trinity better days, we give you our Apostolic Benediction."
Pages
▼
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
From The Mary Of History To The Mary Of Roman Catholicism
From Philip Schaff's History Of The Christian Church (Saginaw, Michigan: Historical Exegetical ‘Lectronic Publishing, 1996):
"The Catholic church, however, both Latin and Greek, did not stop with this. After the middle of the fourth century it overstepped the wholesome biblical limit, and transformed the "mother of the Lord" into a mother of God . . ."
ReplyDeleteWOW! I never thought Schaff and his history was so sloppy and ignorant of the Christological heresies o the 4th and 5th centuries. He should know that Mary is the Theotokos and to say that she is not is heresy. I know he was anti-Catholic but that kind of "Christian" history is just irresponsible.
Believing that Mary is not the mother of Jesus would be heretical, yes. But give us one good reason why denying Mary as "Mother of God" should be heresy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you'd bother to read Schaff, you'd know that he distinguishes between the reasons for using "Mother of God" at Nicea and the reasons for using it afterwards.
semper reformanda writes:
ReplyDelete"Also, if you'd bother to read Schaff..."
You expect too much.
"Believing that Mary is not the mother of Jesus would be heretical, yes. But give us one good reason why denying Mary as "Mother of God" should be heresy."
ReplyDeleteIs Jesus not God? Is Jesus not one person or as Cyril might put it today one subject? Or is Jesus two subjects and two people? Did God come upon Jesus after his birth? Maybe Jesus became God at his baptism. Another problem is that our salvation is linked to Jesus being fully human and experiencing a human life. So if Mary is not Theotokos then our salvation is in question. But I guess the easiest answer is that one with your view would be a Nestorian.
"Also, if you'd bother to read Schaff, you'd know that he distinguishes between the reasons for using "Mother of God" at Nicea and the reasons for using it afterwards."
The title of theotokos was most heatly debated later than nicea. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius debated over it. Thus we have the 3rd ecumenical council of Ephesus.
BH- CARL
Matthew,
ReplyDeletemaybe I am expecting too much for those on this blog to read and know church history and orthodox Christology.
WOW! I never thought Schaff and his history was so sloppy and ignorant of the Christological heresies o the 4th and 5th centuries. He should know that Mary is the Theotokos and to say that she is not is heresy. I know he was anti-Catholic but that kind of "Christian" history is just irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteEcumenical Councils are not our rule of faith, as difficult for you that may be to understand.
Is Jesus not God?
Yes He is, but Jesus qua Jesus is the Incarnate Theandric Person - Fully God and fully man, not "God qua God." alone. The Son is God qua God. Mary did not give birth to the Son qua Son. She gave birth to the Incarnate Theandric Person. God qua God has no mother. That's the sum of the objection and one reason why, to this day, it remains controversial, even among those of us who affirm the communication of attributes. It is inappropriate, they say, because it leads to the very place that Catholicism has taken it, which is why Schaff says what he says. Schaff is not making a Christological statement here, he is making a statement about the way the term came to be used by those who wish to elevate Mary herself to a place of person glory. You, sir, need to come down off of your high horse and actually read Schaff in context.
Is Jesus not one person or as Cyril might put it today one subject? Or is Jesus two subjects and two people? Did God come upon Jesus after his birth? Maybe Jesus became God at his baptism. Another problem is that our salvation is linked to Jesus being fully human and experiencing a human life. So if Mary is not Theotokos then our salvation is in question. But I guess the easiest answer is that one with your view would be a Nestorian.
Yes, we know you and Cyril have been having a longlove affair. But Cyril is not our rule of faith. And rejecting the title "Theotokos" does not select for Nestorianism. You should just apostatize to Orthodoxy right now if you're going to start pounding that gavel. You sound more like of them than one of them than one of us and have for quite some time.
We do not deny that Jesus, eg. the Son, was God qua God before the Incarnation, in the womb, and forever after. Neither did Schaff. What he, and many of us, deny is the appropriateness of the title as it relates to Mary herself. Also, we deny it is necessary as a Christological statement, for it is enough that we can establish His eternal deity by way of good old fashioned exegesis. Ergo, we don't rely on Cyril. Without affirming the errors of Nestorianism, we do affirm that he himself was correct in warning that such a title would result in the elevation of Mary to a (virtual) goddess. Personally, I could care less about the issue, as long as it's not used in a manner that elevates Mary to anything but the mother of Christ. I don't think it necessary at all as a Christological statement in the present day.
The title of theotokos was most heatly debated later than nicea. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius debated over it. Thus we have the 3rd ecumenical council of Ephesus....maybe I am expecting too much for those on this blog to read and know church history and orthodox Christology.
1. The 3rd Ecumenical Council does not determine "orthodox Christology." Indeed, it condemned the Nestorians, but it did not fix the true doctrine. I thought you knew that.
2. Councils are not our rule of faith in these parts. Maybe we're assuming too much from a student at a Southern Baptist Seminary to believe the Protestant rule of faith.
3. We're not talking about Christology in this thread - you are talking about it and playing demagogue in the process. We've had a lot of that here of late. You want to try for a warning too?
As Semper Reformanda and Gene have noted, a phrase such as "Mother of God" can be used in different ways in different contexts, and an objection to the phrase in one context doesn't necessarily suggest an objection to it in another. The idea that Schaff and others who have affirmed the Biblical view of Christ have been objecting to the title Mother of God on heretical grounds is absurd. Some of the titles given to Christ can be interpreted in different ways in different contexts. Think of how various heretical groups could reinterpret a title like Son of Man or Son of God. You have to ask yourself what concepts an individual or group has in mind when they use or object to a particular title, not just whether they use or oppose that title. If a title applied to Christ is unbiblical, and its use isn't of much importance and has been widely abused, then it can make sense to object to the use of the title in general or in some contexts. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have had significant problems with holding too high a view of Mary. We have good reason to think that a title like Mother of God has been abused by them. The title is unbiblical, it isn't important, and it's been widely abused.
ReplyDeleteBut let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Schaff was wrong on that issue. It doesn't therefore follow that he probably was wrong in most of the remainder of what he said. Blackhaw is objecting to a small portion of what I cited, and the primary argument of my post is sustained even if we conclude that Schaff was wrong on the issue Blackhaw has singled out.
"Yes He is, but Jesus qua Jesus is the Incarnate Theandric Person - Fully God and fully man, not "God qua God." alone. The Son is God qua God. Mary did not give birth to the Son qua Son. She gave birth to the Incarnate Theandric Person."
ReplyDeleteGene, what you gave here just is Cyril's teaching. He affirms the double birth of the Person of the Logos, one in eternity and one in time. If theotokos (more accurately God-bearer) means that Mary gave birth to the Son as God from God, that is obviously heretical. When we say that she gave birth to the Son, we mean that she gave birth to the Son according to his humanity. The denial of the phrase was predicated on an ordo theologiae that considered natures first and not persons, such that Mary gave birth to a human nature and all its properties (which by this logic demanded a human person). The phrase becomes a shiboleth for Orthodoxy to affirm that she gave birth to a single subject. So taken as God qua Person it is Orthodox, taken as God qua nature it would obviously be heretical. So by your gloss, the content of the faith is the same as far as I can tell.
Photios
"Ecumenical Councils are not our rule of faith, as difficult for you that may be to understand.'
ReplyDeleteNever thought so. But it is still heresy.
"Yes He is, but Jesus qua Jesus is the Incarnate Theandric Person - Fully God and fully man, not "God qua God." alone. The Son is God qua God. Mary did not give birth to the Son qua Son. She gave birth to the Incarnate Theandric Person. God qua God has no mother. That's the sum of the objection and one reason why, to this day, it remains controversial, even among those of us who affirm the communication of attributes. It is inappropriate, they say, because it leads to the very place that Catholicism has taken it, which is why Schaff says what he says. Schaff is not making a Christological statement here, he is making a statement about the way the term came to be used by those who wish to elevate Mary herself to a place of person glory. You, sir, need to come down off of your high horse and actually read Schaff in context."
The statement was Christological. So Schaff is sloppy (as a historian) because he is taking a Christological statement and twisting it into something else.
"Yes, we know you and Cyril have been having a longlove affair. But Cyril is not our rule of faith. And rejecting the title "Theotokos" does not select for Nestorianism. You should just apostatize to Orthodoxy right now if you're going to start pounding that gavel. You sound more like of them than one of them than one of us and have for quite some time."
What a Fundamentalistic statement! You are one of THEM not US! That would be funny if I had not seen the dangers of fundamentalism first hand.
"We do not deny that Jesus, eg. the Son, was God qua God before the Incarnation, in the womb, and forever after. Neither did Schaff. What he, and many of us, deny is the appropriateness of the title as it relates to Mary herself. Also, we deny it is necessary as a Christological statement, for it is enough that we can establish His eternal deity by way of good old fashioned exegesis. Ergo, we don't rely on Cyril. Without affirming the errors of Nestorianism, we do affirm that he himself was correct in warning that such a title would result in the elevation of Mary to a (virtual) goddess. Personally, I could care less about the issue, as long as it's not used in a manner that elevates Mary to anything but the mother of Christ. I don't think it necessary at all as a Christological statement in the present day."
AHHH just you and your Bible. Yeah right. Sola Scriptura was never meant to be that. It does not take a long reading of Calvin to see that. So you believe Mary is Christokos. Okay.
"1. The 3rd Ecumenical Council does not determine "orthodox Christology." Indeed, it condemned the Nestorians, but it did not fix the true doctrine. I thought you knew that."
I never said it did. This is a red herring. But Ephesus was very important. Chalcedon was an argument (in part) between rival Cyrillian traditions. Cyril was probably the Father that most shaped Christological thinking.
"
2. Councils are not our rule of faith in these parts. Maybe we're assuming too much from a student at a Southern Baptist Seminary to believe the Protestant rule of faith."
first many protestants hold to at least some of the councils and give some authority to them. Many recite the nicene or at least the apostle's creed during their service. Also what is this protestant rule of faith? I did not know that it was unprotestant to examine how the church has exegeted different passages in the past and to examine its tradition for clues about proper theology.
"3. We're not talking about Christology in this thread - you are talking about it and playing demagogue in the process. We've had a lot of that here of late. You want to try for a warning too"
I just made a point about the sloppiness of Schaff. Are you that insecure that you will give out warnings for that?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteSchaff is a historian. As a historian he should know that the title was used primarily as a Christological statement. So it is sloppy for him to use it in a different way.
Also while I normally do not always call a rejection of a title heretical I think the way some people have used mother of Christ instead of mother of god is heretical. It divides the person of Christ. Sure Mary was never the mother of Christ' divine nature. hwoever he was one person and thus one subject. Thus just like one can say that God suffered or that God died, one can say that Mary was the mother of God.
Photios,
ReplyDeleteSure no one, and certainly not Cyril, is stating that Mary gave birth to Jesus' Divine nature. That is unless one says that the divine nature made the birth of the flesh or humanity of Christ its own. Thus Divine experienced and made its own Christ's human birth. So Mary did not bring the Logos into existence but the Logos experienced (in some way) the human birth of Christ. That is also why Cyril can state that the Divine made the sufferings of the human nature its own.
Blackhaw said:
ReplyDelete"Schaff is a historian. As a historian he should know that the title was used primarily as a Christological statement. So it is sloppy for him to use it in a different way."
In the passage you criticized, Schaff refers to "a mother of God". He doesn't say that he's addressing a title, nor does he say that he's addressing what the term was "primarily" used for.
The concept of Mary as a mother of God can be used in different ways by different sources and in more than one way by a single source. The fact that the title Mother of God was used as a Christological statement doesn't prove that it wasn't used for other purposes as well.
In the sentence you criticized, Schaff was listing a series of transformations in how Mary was viewed, transformations that began in the fourth century. He doesn't claim that everybody who used a term such as Mother of God intended such transformations or that the transformations were completed in the fourth (or fifth) century.
Later in the same section of his church history that you've criticized and early in the next section, he writes:
"The leading interest in it [the Nestorian controversy] was, without doubt, the connection of the virgin with the mystery of the incarnation. The perfect union of the divine and human natures seemed to demand that Mary might be called in some sense the mother of God, qeotovko", Deipara; for that which was born of her was not merely the man Jesus, but the God-Man Jesus Christ. The church, however, did, of course, not intend by that to assert that she was the mother of the uncreated divine essence—for this would be palpably absurd and blasphemous—nor that she herself was divine, but only that she was the human point of entrance or the mysterious channel for the eternal divine Logos....If Mary is, in the strict sense of the word, the mother of God, it seems to follow as a logical consequence, that she herself is divine, and therefore an object of divine worship. This was not, indeed, the meaning and purpose of the ancient church; as, in fact, it never asserted that Mary was the mother of the essential, eternal divinity of the Logos. She was, and continues to be, a created being, a human mother, even according to the Roman and Greek doctrine." (sections 81-82 here)
He isn't denying that such distinctions were made. What he seems to be referring to in the section you've criticized is a transformation of the view of Mary that resulted, in part, from a focus on her relation to Jesus' deity. You can believe that the developments of the fourth and fifth centuries resulted in too high a view of Mary without thereby denying that there were some good intentions involved in the process also, such as an intention to communicate something about Christ's identity. Different individuals can have different motives, and something done with a good motive can have bad results or a mixture of good and bad results. I don't see anything "sloppy" in suggesting that the shift in focus from seeing Mary as "the mother of the Lord" to seeing her as "a mother of God" carried some negative consequences with it.
I never said it did. This is a red herring. But Ephesus was very important. Chalcedon was an argument (in part) between rival Cyrillian traditions. Cyril was probably the Father that most shaped Christologic al thinking.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a red herring, it goes to the way you framed the discussion - in terms of the 3rd Ecumenical Council, not Scripture. I'm merely answering you on your own level.
Further, here are some samples from your own writings on this blog:
"I have read a lot in the church fathers so I am pretty sypathetic to CAtholic theology. I am really more sympathetic to Eastern Orthodox theology but it has some similarities to Roman Catholic theology."
". I used to be reformed but I do not know if that it an aplicable title for me now. I have read too much of the church fathers. ;)"
"you're not going to come up with the Nicene Creed by just picking up the Bible."
I also seem to recall a discussion that Steve had with you in which you repeatedly sidestepped the issue about distinguishing the difference between true and false tradition. You had a real problem answering that one. Indeed, you made recourse to "tradition" and "history" and "creeds," repeatedly, and talked about a "dynamic hermeneutic."
What a Fundamentalistic statement! I'm not a Fundamentalist. NC Reformed Baptists are conservative, but we aren't known for being "fundamentalists." Take your Texas shame elsewhere.
You are one of THEM not US! That would be funny if I had not seen the dangers of fundamentalism first hand.
So, in reaction to Fundamentalism is to run to Patristics and then emote when I merely take your own statements to their logical conclusion. You're the one pounding the gavel of "heresy" here, just like the Orthodox do. You're the one who wrote a year ago that you are "more sympathetic to Eastern Orthodoxy theology," not me. You're in a transitional phase.
You're the one that first pounded the gavel and said, He should know that Mary is the Theotokos and to say that she is not is heresy."
So, who here is really the one saying "You're one of them, not one of us."
AHHH just you and your Bible. Yeah right. Sola Scriptura was never meant to be that. It does not take a long reading of Calvin to see that.
I have denied Solo Scriptura many times on this blog and others. As a seminary student, it might help you to cultivate the habit of reading what others write and representing their writing correctly.
So you believe Mary is Christokos. Okay.
1. Can you quote me on that? No. Here's what I actually wrote:
Personally, I could care less about the issue, as long as it's not used in a manner that elevates Mary to anything but the mother of Christ. I don't think it necessary at all as a Christological statement in the present day.
And here's what you said later:
Also while I normally do not always call a rejection of a title heretical I think the way some people have used mother of Christ instead of mother of god is heretical.
So, I take it you were calling me a heretic - and misrepresenting what I actually said in the process. That's very fundamentalistic of you.
2. Like I said, you're talking about Christology here - not Schaff. Try again.
The statement was Christological. So Schaff is sloppy (as a historian) because he is taking a Christological statement and twisting it into something else.
Schaff isn't discussing Christology, he's discussing the way later generations came to use the term. You're the one obsessed with Christology here, not us, not Schaff.
first many protestants hold to at least some of the councils and give some authority to them.
A secondary, derivative, revisable authority. For example, most of us in the Reformed Tradition may recite the Nicene Creed, but we deny that God is the fons deitas in the way the Orthodox affirm it. We've been over this ground with you before.
Many recite the nicene or at least the apostle's creed during their service.
Again, that's irrelevant to my objection. Sola Scriptura is our rule of faith in these parts, not Holy Tradition, not Councils, or a Magisterium, or creeds.
Once again, you want to discuss creedal statements, not Scripture. Steve's been over that with you before.
In this very thread, you made no appeal to Scripture, you appealed to the 3rd Ecumenical Council.Protestants don’t deny that some traditional interpretations of Scripture got it right. But that doesn’t give carte blanche to tradition, and to invest a lot of time in the history of the creeds is a very roundabout and unreliable way to arrive at the correct exegesis of Scripture.
just made a point about the sloppiness of Schaff. Are you that insecure that you will give out warnings for that?
No, you weren't just criticizing Schaff's "sloppiness:
1. No, you also called Schaff a heretic. I never thought Schaff and his history was so sloppy and ignorant of the Christological heresies o the 4th and 5th centuries. He should know that Mary is the Theotokos and to say that she is not is heresy. That's a bit more than calling him "sloppy."
2. You then used Schaff as a springboard to discuss Christology, and you made specific reference to the Christological discussions of the Nicene/Post-Nicene ages. That wasn't relevant to Schaff - because...
3. In context, Schaff isn't discussing Christology. He's discussing Mariology.
4. I don't give warnings about the theological content of what others write. A warning comes because of demagoguery. By the way, this is your first. You probably deserved one last year anyway. Want to go for a second one?
5. Another problem is that you're projecting. You emote all over the place, not me, not Steve, not Jason. You're the one who is insecure, not me, not Steve, not Jason.
"No, it's not a red herring, it goes to the way you framed the discussion - in terms of the 3rd Ecumenical Council, not Scripture. I'm merely answering you on your own level."
ReplyDeleteYou said that "Eccumenical councils are not your rule of faith." I know that. i never said they were or were not. But you also said that Ephesus does not determine orthodox Christology. i never said that. So it is a red herring. It would be more proper to state that Chalcedon did that based largely on a certain type of Cyrillian theology which was based upon scripture. So in the end it is Scripture that is the basis of Christology. it was that for the church fathers, the reformers, and for me. One caveat would be that there is something to Lex Orandi Lex Credendi for the church Fathers and myself and I think even for the reformers. I think this is a complicated issue so I will not dive into it.
"What a Fundamentalistic statement! I'm not a Fundamentalist. NC Reformed Baptists are conservative, but we aren't known for being "fundamentalists." Take your Texas shame elsewhere."
I never said you are one. I said your statement was. But i see you and this site often acting like it is. that is my opinion of you based upon your participation on this site. But that statement did not say that you are a fundamentalist. It was commenting on your statement.
"So, in reaction to Fundamentalism is to run to Patristics and then emote when I merely take your own statements to their logical conclusion. You're the one pounding the gavel of "heresy" here, just like the Orthodox do. You're the one who wrote a year ago that you are "more sympathetic to Eastern Orthodoxy theology," not me. You're in a transitional phase."
First I am sympathetic to EO theology and the EO church. Also I am not upset that you compare me to EOs. I am commenting on your "Us" vs. "Them" attitude which is very typical of fundamentalism.
"You're the one that first pounded the gavel and said, He should know that Mary is the Theotokos and to say that she is not is heresy."
So, who here is really the one saying "You're one of them, not one of us."
But again my point is about your attitude. you can state that our theologies are much different. That is true. But your statement displayed a fundamentalistic attitude. And I was also pointing to a specific doctrine and stating that not believing i is heretical. i was not calling all Calvinists or reformed baptists heretical.
"I have denied Solo Scriptura many times on this blog and others. As a seminary student, it might help you to cultivate the habit of reading what others write and representing their writing correctly"
I was commenting on your statement. you rejected my use of tradition when I interpret scripture. If that is not solo scriptura i do not know what is. You can state that you reject it but in your reply to me you did not.
"So you believe Mary is Christokos. Okay.
1. Can you quote me on that? No. Here's what I actually wrote:
Personally, I could care less about the issue, as long as it's not used in a manner that elevates Mary to anything but the mother of Christ. I don't think it necessary at all as a Christological statement in the present day."
Come on. you know what Christokos means. I gave you credit for that. It means Christ bearer or mother of Christ. That is the highest title for mary you would affirm. That was pretty obvious.
"So, I take it you were calling me a heretic - and misrepresenting what I actually said in the process. That's very fundamentalistic of you."
Well i think that calling Mary Christokos is a heretical statement. I think it is often done out of ignorance. I am not so sure with you.
"Like I said, you're talking about Christology here - not Schaff. Try again.
ReplyDeleteThe statement was Christological. So Schaff is sloppy (as a historian) because he is taking a Christological statement and twisting it into something else.
Schaff isn't discussing Christology, he's discussing the way later generations came to use the term. You're the one obsessed with Christology here, not us, not Schaff. "
I know what Schaff is doing. The problem is that he is being very sloppy. He is taking a term that was used Christologically by the church fahters and then not acknowledging that. Sure Mariology went crazy. Bt he explicitly states that the term Theotokos or mother of God is wrong. instead one should use mother of our lord. He states that this occured in the 4th century. Ephesus was the 5th centruy. in the 5th century, which is after he is saying that things were completely perverted theolgians wre idolizing Mary and worshipping her. Thus these theologians called her Mother of God. That is just wrong. in the th century Mother of God was a title given to Mar to conve more abou Christolog than anything else. Schaff is not being fair and he is being sloppy. But then again how many people really read Schaff today? He is outdated.
"In this very thread, you made no appeal to Scripture, you appealed to the 3rd Ecumenical Council.Protestants don’t deny that some traditional interpretations of Scripture got it right. But that doesn’t give carte blanche to tradition, and to invest a lot of time in the history of the creeds is a very roundabout and unreliable way to arrive at the correct exegesis of Scripture."
I did not do that in this thread. I mainnly used Ephesus to demonstrate how wrong his history was. But in this thread I never said that one had to agree with Ephesus just because it is Ephesus.
"1. No, you also called Schaff a heretic. I never thought Schaff and his history was so sloppy and ignorant of the Christological heresies o the 4th and 5th centuries. He should know that Mary is the Theotokos and to say that she is not is heresy. That's a bit more than calling him "sloppy." "
I did state that. But I think Schaff was just ignorant. Historical theology has come a long way since his days.
"2. You then used Schaff as a springboard to discuss Christology, and you made specific reference to the Christological discussions of the Nicene/Post-Nicene ages. That wasn't relevant to Schaff - because...
3. In context, Schaff isn't discussing Christology. He's discussing Mariology."
He is a historian. He is using a specific title given to Mary that had a specific Christological intention. He ignored that intention. He was sloppy and displayed his ignorance of that time period.
"I don't give warnings about the theological content of what others write. A warning comes because of demagoguery. By the way, this is your first. You probably deserved one last year anyway. Want to go for a second one? "
i did not do anything last year or this year to receive any type of warning. Give them if you want to do so. this is y'all's site.
"Another problem is that you're projecting. You emote all over the place, not me, not Steve, not Jason. You're the one who is insecure, not me, not Steve, not Jason."
This is intersting because whenever one questions any post on this site then he or she becomes a villian. I remember my first posting about not calling Mother Theresa a super heretic. I said that maybe you should give here a little charity. That just would not do on this site. ou I was put down repeatedly because I just asked for a little charity to Mother Theresa. When I calmly stated that y'all's attitudes and behaviour towards those you disagree with was damaging to you and your witness, you told me that you could emote all over the place and call those who disagree with you names because they are all heretics. The smallest things make one a heretic here. oh well
Blackhaw said:
ReplyDelete"I know what Schaff is doing. The problem is that he is being very sloppy. He is taking a term that was used Christologically by the church fahters and then not acknowledging that. Sure Mariology went crazy. Bt he explicitly states that the term Theotokos or mother of God is wrong. instead one should use mother of our lord. He states that this occured in the 4th century. Ephesus was the 5th centruy. in the 5th century, which is after he is saying that things were completely perverted theolgians wre idolizing Mary and worshipping her. Thus these theologians called her Mother of God. That is just wrong. in the th century Mother of God was a title given to Mar to conve more abou Christolog than anything else. Schaff is not being fair and he is being sloppy. But then again how many people really read Schaff today? He is outdated....He is using a specific title given to Mary that had a specific Christological intention. He ignored that intention. He was sloppy and displayed his ignorance of that time period."
I also quote other older sources, such as the church fathers, if they speak well on an issue. You haven't shown that Schaff is "outdated" on the issue for which I cited him. Even if he had been wrong on the one portion of his comments that you singled out, the bulk of his comments would still be reasonable, and quoting such comments would be reasonable.
Regarding Mary's relation to Jesus, I don't know why you keep repeating your assertions about Schaff without interacting with what I wrote on the subject in my last response to you. As I demonstrated, Schaff acknowledges the use of the term Mother of God to make a Christological statement, and he distinguishes between different ways in which the term can be used. As I said earlier, the fact that a term is used for one purpose doesn't prove that it can't be used for another as well.
And Schaff doesn't claim that the view of Mary was "completely perverted" in the fourth century. He's referring to a more gradual process.
You keep criticizing Schaff for being "sloppy" and "unfair", but you're more guilty of such behavior with regard to this passage than he is.
You write:
"This is intersting because whenever one questions any post on this site then he or she becomes a villian....When I calmly stated that y'all's attitudes and behaviour towards those you disagree with was damaging to you and your witness, you told me that you could emote all over the place and call those who disagree with you names because they are all heretics. The smallest things make one a heretic here."
If you're so concerned about "sloppiness", why are you so sloppy in how you represent us?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI did not reply to you because I did not have time. But now I will. Thank you for quoting other parts of his Church history. That is fine. The problem still remains. It is sloppy. Theokotos was not a title that might have had some Christological connotatians by some. It was a Christological statement. Its main purpose in the 5th century was Christological. SO it is sloppy to start a whole rant about Mariology, before he speaks about its Christological use BTW, and not speak about its proper Christological use. Also this section makes no sense given his later section. He said that it was improper to use "Mother of God" or Theotokos. That is a pretty definite statement. So his writing looks even more sloppy now. At one instance he states it was a complete perversion to say Mary is the mother of God and then he changes his mind. Look at again at the first passage. He was against the entire phrase "Mother of God." Later he is okay with it (at least when some use it for Christological reasons).
And yes Schaff is outdated. Taht is not a crtiicism of his work per se. It is just old. No historian that I know of with much credibility uses Schaff as a major source to prove a point. They might use him to demonstrate the historical progression of historical theology. But I do not know of any good contemporary histories on the early church that use Schaff as a primary source.
Blackhaw said:
ReplyDelete"Theokotos was not a title that might have had some Christological connotatians by some. It was a Christological statement."
You're misrepresenting the issue under discussion. I didn't argue, nor did Schaff, that "Theokotos was...a title that might have had some Christological connotatians by some". The fact that a term is used for one purpose doesn't prove that it can't be used for another as well. I've made this point in my responses to you repeatedly. You keep ignoring it.
You write:
"Its main purpose in the 5th century was Christological."
Again, Schaff doesn't say that he's discussing a title from the fifth century, and the fact that a phrase has a "main purpose" doesn't prove that all other purposes should be ignored. I've explained these things repeatedly.
You write:
"At one instance he states it was a complete perversion to say Mary is the mother of God and then he changes his mind. Look at again at the first passage. He was against the entire phrase 'Mother of God.' Later he is okay with it (at least when some use it for Christological reasons)."
Where does Schaff refer to "a complete perversion"? As I told you earlier, and you didn't interact with what I said:
"In the passage you criticized, Schaff refers to 'a mother of God'. He doesn't say that he's addressing a title, nor does he say that he's addressing what the term was 'primarily' used for....In the sentence you criticized, Schaff was listing a series of transformations in how Mary was viewed, transformations that began in the fourth century. He doesn't claim that everybody who used a term such as Mother of God intended such transformations or that the transformations were completed in the fourth (or fifth) century....What he seems to be referring to in the section you've criticized is a transformation of the view of Mary that resulted, in part, from a focus on her relation to Jesus' deity. You can believe that the developments of the fourth and fifth centuries resulted in too high a view of Mary without thereby denying that there were some good intentions involved in the process also, such as an intention to communicate something about Christ's identity. Different individuals can have different motives, and something done with a good motive can have bad results or a mixture of good and bad results. I don't see anything 'sloppy' in suggesting that the shift in focus from seeing Mary as 'the mother of the Lord' to seeing her as 'a mother of God' carried some negative consequences with it."
You write:
"And yes Schaff is outdated. Taht is not a crtiicism of his work per se. It is just old."
If you're not "criticizing his work", but instead are criticizing its oldness, that criticism doesn't prove that I shouldn't be citing Schaff in the context in which I cited him.
Jason,
ReplyDelete"You're misrepresenting the issue under discussion. I didn't argue, nor did Schaff, that "Theokotos was...a title that might have had some Christological connotatians by some". The fact that a term is used for one purpose doesn't prove that it can't be used for another as well. I've made this point in my responses to you repeatedly. You keep ignoring it."
"Again, Schaff doesn't say that he's discussing a title from the fifth century, and the fact that a phrase has a "main purpose" doesn't prove that all other purposes should be ignored. I've explained these things repeatedly."
I will speak about these two comments together. You have to remember that he is a historian. He knows how theotokos was used. It is sloppy and misleading to write about it in the way he did. He disregards in this section any use for theotokos or the phrase Mother of God (which is the same thing). He stated that sometime in the 4th century Mariology began. It started in the 4th century. In the same breath he states that Mary as the Mother of the Lord became Mary the Mother of God. He argues thus that calling Mary the mother of God was/ is wrong. Correct doctrine concerning Mary, according to Schaff in this section, is to call Mary the Mother of our lord. One should not call Mary the Mother of God. Thus one should not call Mary Theotokos since that term means God bearer or mother of God. He also never mentions any of what he would call a correct interpretation of Theotokos in this section. And finally he disregards the main reason why Mary was called Theotokos in the 4th and 5th centuries. It is very much like one arguing against hyper-calvinism while completely ignoring any other type of Calvinism.
"Where does Schaff refer to "a complete perversion"? As I told you earlier, and you didn't interact with what I said:"
Yes the terms "Complete perversion" are mine. But they represent what he is saying. Thetokos for Schaff is a complete perversion of a true understanding of Mary (in the 1st section). I am just describing what Schaff is arguing.
""In the passage you criticized, Schaff refers to 'a mother of God'. He doesn't say that he's addressing a title, nor does he say that he's addressing what the term was 'primarily' used for....In the sentence you criticized, Schaff was listing a series of transformations in how Mary was viewed, transformations that began in the fourth century. He doesn't claim that everybody who used a term such as Mother of God intended such transformations or that the transformations were completed in the fourth (or fifth) century....What he seems to be referring to in the section you've criticized is a transformation of the view of Mary that resulted, in part, from a focus on her relation to Jesus' deity. You can believe that the developments of the fourth and fifth centuries resulted in too high a view of Mary without thereby denying that there were some good intentions involved in the process also, such as an intention to communicate something about Christ's identity. Different individuals can have different motives, and something done with a good motive can have bad results or a mixture of good and bad results. I don't see anything 'sloppy' in suggesting that the shift in focus from seeing Mary as 'the mother of the Lord' to seeing her as 'a mother of God' carried some negative consequences with it."
Again in the first section he makes a comparison between mother of our Lord (the former and the correct understanding) with Mother of God (the later and wrong understanding)of Mary. Schaff says that the whole CAtholic church (latin and Greek) after 350 AD or so transformed Mary from being "Mother of the Lord" into A mother of God (in greek Thetokos). So obviously Theotokos here there is no good use for theotokos or the phrase mother of God. Just his ignoring of the Christological use off the term during the time period he is speaking about is bad enough. But those theologians in the 4-5th centuries claimed that if one did not claim that Mary is theotokos then one was a heretic. now whether this is right or wrong is not the main point. the main point is that they claimed that the person who did not claim Mary was Theotokos was a heretic was because Christ is one. He is not two sons or beings. Thus when nestorius called Mary Christokos or Christ bearer then Cyril athemetized him. Cyril did it because of a Christological misunderstanding on Nestorius' part. The main concern was not really so much about Mary. To ignore this is sloppy and leads others into misunderstandings. It is not good to describe a minor understanding of a term or phrase while ignoring the major understanding. I do not know how much more plain I can be.
"If you're not "criticizing his work", but instead are criticizing its oldness, that criticism doesn't prove that I shouldn't be citing Schaff in the context in which I cited him."
Scholarly works, especially historical ones whenthey get old can become outdated. For instance, while I do not agree with him, Harnack wrote the greatest history of dogma to date. it is the classic work on the subject. But many if not most Patristic scholars have rejected his notion of the theological method of the church fathers. They were not simply overly philosophical. Their main text was the Bible. Other texts not as great do not have such a long shelf life. For instance Newman wrote a great text on arianism. Although he wasa great scholar it is viewed as being outdated today. Scholars have moved past his views on Arinaism (for the most part). But it is still read because it is one of the classic works on Arianism. it helps one understand the history of scholarly work on Arianism. Sorry but Schaff's history of the church is aged.
Blackhaw said:
ReplyDelete"One should not call Mary the Mother of God. Thus one should not call Mary Theotokos since that term means God bearer or mother of God."
That's not what Schaff said. In the section you've been criticizing, he's referring to transformations in how Mary was viewed. A view of Mary isn't the same as a title of Mary. You keep referring to a title and a primary use of that title, whereas Schaff refers to neither. Rather, he's referring to a view of Mary, which involves more than titles and their primary use. And Mary was already being referred to as mother of God prior to the sources Schaff is criticizing, as Schaff himself notes, so he isn't just criticizing "calling Mary the mother of God".
You seem to keep overlooking a point I made earlier. Somebody can object to a shift in focus on Mary as mother of God without denying that there's some sense in which she can properly be called mother of God. Both the terminology and its use can be judged differently in different contexts, and your criticism of Schaff is simplistic in ignoring the nuance he seems to have intended.
You write:
"And finally he disregards the main reason why Mary was called Theotokos in the 4th and 5th centuries."
As I've documented, he discusses what you call "the main reason why Mary was called Theotokos in the 4th and 5th centuries" elsewhere in the section that contains the passage you're criticizing. He also discusses the subject outside of this section of his church history. If Schaff opposed a view of Mary that involved more than the title you've been focusing on and its primary use, then it doesn't make sense to limit your analysis of the sentence you're criticizing to that title and its primary use. If he thinks that the view of Mary in question was unhealthy for reasons more than or other than what you're focusing on, then arguing that what you're focusing on was part of that view of Mary, even its primary part, doesn't prove that Schaff was "sloppy".
You write:
"Yes the terms 'Complete perversion' are mine. But they represent what he is saying. Thetokos for Schaff is a complete perversion of a true understanding of Mary (in the 1st section)."
All that you're doing is repeating your assertion without supporting it. Schaff doesn't mention the title Theotokos in the section you're criticizing, and the view of Mary he's criticizing doesn't have to be a "complete perversion" in order to be wrong.
You write:
"The main concern was not really so much about Mary. To ignore this is sloppy and leads others into misunderstandings."
History involves more than the "main concerns" behind people's behavior. And since the view of Jesus reflected in the Marian title Mother of God can be communicated without applying that title to Mary, the choice to involve Mary in that manner suggests that more than the "main concern" you keep referring to was involved.
You write:
"Scholarly works, especially historical ones whenthey get old can become outdated. For instance, while I do not agree with him, Harnack wrote the greatest history of dogma to date. it is the classic work on the subject. But many if not most Patristic scholars have rejected his notion of the theological method of the church fathers. They were not simply overly philosophical. Their main text was the Bible. Other texts not as great do not have such a long shelf life. For instance Newman wrote a great text on arianism. Although he wasa great scholar it is viewed as being outdated today. Scholars have moved past his views on Arinaism (for the most part). But it is still read because it is one of the classic works on Arianism. it helps one understand the history of scholarly work on Arianism. Sorry but Schaff's history of the church is aged."
You keep rephrasing your objections without interacting with my responses. I haven't denied that it would be wrong to rely on Schaff where his material is wrong. But describing errors in the works of Harnack and Newman doesn't demonstrate that Schaff is wrong in the context in which I've cited him. What I cited from Schaff consisted largely of descriptions of how Mary was viewed by various sources at different times in church history, suggesting a major shift in how Mary was portrayed. Those aren't subjects Schaff is likely to be wrong about due to how long ago he wrote. And, as I said in my first response to you, even if we assumed an error in the comment of Schaff that you've been criticizing, the point I was making is sustained.
Blackhaw,
ReplyDeleteSchaff criticizes the term "theotokos" not for how it was originally intended but because it was a title that could easily be misused to transform Mary into "Queen of Heaven", "Co-Redemptrix", etc.
It was quite clear from the passage cited that Schaff was not focusing in on how it was used by Cyril of Alexandria but on how that innocent title was then gradually misused over time.
"That's not what Schaff said. In the section you've been criticizing, he's referring to transformations in how Mary was viewed. A view of Mary isn't the same as a title of Mary. You keep referring to a title and a primary use of that title, whereas Schaff refers to neither. Rather, he's referring to a view of Mary, which involves more than titles and their primary use. And Mary was already being referred to as mother of God prior to the sources Schaff is criticizing, as Schaff himself notes, so he isn't just criticizing "calling Mary the mother of God"."
ReplyDeleteIn the first section he explicitly states that it is wrong to call Mary the mother of God. that is obvious. Theotokos= Mother or bearer of God. Thus Theotokos is wrong (in the first section). There is not much wiggle room. He states it is wrong plainly. The title is "The mother of God" which Schaff again says was a change from the proper title "Mother of the Lord." How is this confusing? He states it plainly.
"You seem to keep overlooking a point I made earlier. Somebody can object to a shift in focus on Mary as mother of God without denying that there's some sense in which she can properly be called mother of God. Both the terminology and its use can be judged differently in different contexts, and your criticism of Schaff is simplistic in ignoring the nuance he seems to have intended."
But that is not what he did in the 1st section. He said there was an improper shift from Mother of the Lord to Mother of God.
Here is the quote: The Catholic church, however, both Latin and Greek, did not stop with this. After the middle of the fourth century it overstepped the wholesome biblical limit, and transformed the "mother of the Lord" into a mother of God
That is very clear.
"As I've documented, he discusses what you call "the main reason why Mary was called Theotokos in the 4th and 5th centuries" elsewhere in the section that contains the passage you're criticizing. He also discusses the subject outside of this section of his church history. If Schaff opposed a view of Mary that involved more than the title you've been focusing on and its primary use, then it doesn't make sense to limit your analysis of the sentence you're criticizing to that title and its primary use. If he thinks that the view of Mary in question was unhealthy for reasons more than or other than what you're focusing on, then arguing that what you're focusing on was part of that view of Mary, even its primary part, doesn't prove that Schaff was "sloppy"."
I have already dealt with this. He changes what he says later. In the other passage you cited he changes his view (atleast in writing). He might not have changed the view in his own mind but what he wrote in the 1st section is contradictory to what he wrote in the 2nd. Also it is sloppy to write what he did in the 1st with no mention of Theotokos' proper use. To put things even more bluntly No Mr Schaff the church in the middle of the 4th century (and fifth) correctly called Mary Theotokos or Mother of God. However some gave minor meanings to the term Theotokos that are not correct.
"All that you're doing is repeating your assertion without supporting it. Schaff doesn't mention the title Theotokos in the section you're criticizing, and the view of Mary he's criticizing doesn't have to be a "complete perversion" in order to be wrong."
I have gone over this before. Also see my responses above. He rejects the phrase "Mother of God" for Mary. He flat out rejects it in the 1st section.
"History involves more than the "main concerns" behind people's behavior. And since the view of Jesus reflected in the Marian title Mother of God can be communicated without applying that title to Mary, the choice to involve Mary in that manner suggests that more than the "main concern" you keep referring to was involved."
The main reason why the early church called Mary Theotokos was the reason I gave. Read some of the history about the time period and the title. Also one has to guve understanding to main concerns. One cannot overlook them and still do unsloppy history.
I am dropping the whole issue about Schaff being outdated. He is outdated but it is not a major concern.
"It was quite clear from the passage cited that Schaff was not focusing in on how it was used by Cyril of Alexandria but on how that innocent title was then gradually misused over time."
ReplyDeleteRe-read how Schaff states that calling Mary the mother of God "overstepped the wholesome biblical limit." It was definitely wrong for Mary to be called the Mother of God in this section.
Blackhaw said:
ReplyDelete"In the first section he explicitly states that it is wrong to call Mary the mother of God. that is obvious. Theotokos= Mother or bearer of God. Thus Theotokos is wrong (in the first section). There is not much wiggle room. He states it is wrong plainly. The title is 'The mother of God' which Schaff again says was a change from the proper title 'Mother of the Lord.' How is this confusing?"
Schaff doesn't say that he's addressing what Mary should be called, he doesn't use the title Theotokos, and he refers to "a mother of God", not "the mother of God". Given Schaff's beliefs and what he goes on to say in the remainder of this section of his church history and elsewhere, his reference to "a mother of God" seems to be intended to refer to a particular view of Mary as mother of God, not all such concepts.
You write:
"I have already dealt with this. He changes what he says later. In the other passage you cited he changes his view (atleast in writing). He might not have changed the view in his own mind but what he wrote in the 1st section is contradictory to what he wrote in the 2nd."
If you have to argue that Schaff contradicted himself in so short a space, that's a problem for your interpretation. If he didn't "change the view in his own mind", then what you seem to be objecting to is a lack of clarity in the earlier sentence you're criticizing. If that's all you meant by "sloppiness", then your criticism isn't of much significance. It's common for people, including historians, to fail to communicate as clearly as they could. Read your own posts, for example. If Schaff's theology, his comments later in the same section you're criticizing in his church history, and other contexts clarify what Schaff meant, then complaining that one sentence he wrote suggests a contrary understanding isn't of much significance. It's not the sort of error that would justify your initial comments in this thread. People usually don't respond with "WOW!", in all capital letters and with an exclamation point, just because a historian wrote one sentence that, if isolated from the context, would be interpreted in a manner contrary to the context. And the lack of clarity you're suggesting in that one sentence doesn't justify your initial suggestion that Schaff was "ignorant of the Christological heresies of the 4th and 5th centuries".
You write:
"Also one has to guve understanding to main concerns. One cannot overlook them and still do unsloppy history."
Who denied that "main concerns" should be taken into account? Taking a second or third concern into account isn't a denial that a first concern should be taken into account. If Schaff thought that people were associating multiple concepts with the notion that Mary is the mother of God, and he considered some of those concepts erroneous, why should he refrain from criticizing that view of Mary just because part of the view was justified?
One should not call Mary the Mother of God. Thus one should not call Mary Theotokos since that term means God bearer or mother of God.
ReplyDeleteHere's another example of your commitment to tradition OVER Scripture.
Scripture never accords this title to Mary, so why should we? I have a problem with the breezy way theologians of the past and people like you in the present start theologizing about Christological and then reason to such things as the appropriateness of giving a title to a concrete person. Christological concerns aren't the only concerns involved you know.
I can affirm everything you consider orthodox about Christ/Christology and yet say that calling Mark "Theotokos" is not necessary at this time in the history of the churches. Why? Because, when I read Scripture, I don't see Mary as being the type of person who would accept such a title or any other title that can lead to her veneration, no matter how well meaning it is intended. Consequently, I also deny that Mary is a person to be adored or venerated. If that makes me a "heretic" then that's a gem I want to be on the public record. I could care less about your motivations for using the term. If you want to use it, fine go right ahead, but you and Cyril and the 3rd Ecumenical Council aren't my rule of faith.
Sure, she can be called "Theotokos" and is "Theotokos" as a matter of a logical syllogism, but logical syllogisms don't mean we should accord her such a title. Before we do that, we should, IMHO, ask ourselves if Mary would accept the title herself. I'd say that if it was the Queen of England too, or anybody else in the course of human events in any situation. For example, I don't think we should call people "saints" either, for similar reasons.
It seems like that gets ignored in these discussions too. On the one hand, there was a pragmatic reason related to the Christological debates of that age to call her "Theotokos" in Cyril's day - but we don't live in Cyril's day, and, unlike Cyril, we have no desire or need to venerate Mary.
So, no, it is NOT "unorthodox" or "heretical" to deny that Mary is "Theotokos," regardless of the Christological implications of the term when originally coined. These are just perjorative terms that you're using to make your point.
"Schaff doesn't say that he's addressing what Mary should be called, he doesn't use the title Theotokos, and he refers to "a mother of God", not "the mother of God". Given Schaff's beliefs and what he goes on to say in the remainder of this section of his church history and elsewhere, his reference to "a mother of God" seems to be intended to refer to a particular view of Mary as mother of God, not all such concepts."
ReplyDeleteTheotokos = mother or bearer of God. So he does address the title. And "a mother of God" is not different than "mother of god." Unless you think Schaff is accusing the early church of claiming that there is more than one mother of god. But by using the phrase mother of God, he is addressing the title of theotokos.
"If you have to argue that Schaff contradicted himself in so short a space, that's a problem for your interpretation. If he didn't "change the view in his own mind", then what you seem to be objecting to is a lack of clarity in the earlier sentence you're criticizing. If that's all you meant by "sloppiness", then your criticism isn't of much significance. It's common for people, including historians, to fail to communicate as clearly as they could. Read your own posts, for example. If Schaff's theology, his comments later in the same section you're criticizing in his church history, and other contexts clarify what Schaff meant, then complaining that one sentence he wrote suggests a contrary understanding isn't of much significance. It's not the sort of error that would justify your initial comments in this thread. People usually don't respond with "WOW!", in all capital letters and with an exclamation point, just because a historian wrote one sentence that, if isolated from the context, would be interpreted in a manner contrary to the context. And the lack of clarity you're suggesting in that one sentence doesn't justify your initial suggestion that Schaff was "ignorant of the Christological heresies of the 4th and 5th centuries"."
First of all I am writing a post on a blog. And not a very important one also. no offense but it not like I am writing a book. So comparing my posts to Schaff does not work. Will you next compare one's speech to a ffriend while having lunch to Schaff? Also I said he was sloppy. He could very well be very ignorant of the heresies and conlicts. Sure he knows some thigns about them but not why Cyril and other church fathers called others who denied theotokos heretics.
"Who denied that "main concerns" should be taken into account? Taking a second or third concern into account isn't a denial that a first concern should be taken into account. If Schaff thought that people were associating multiple concepts with the notion that Mary is the mother of God, and he considered some of those concepts erroneous, why should he refrain from criticizing that view of Mary just because part of the view was justified?"
Sure he should criticize some of the Mariology of the Catholic church. Much of it still goes on and should be criticized. But again he is a historian. As a historian he should take history into account. One can't just disregard the primary and Orthodox use of Theotokos in the 4th century and beyond. It gives others alse impressions.
Gene,
ReplyDelete"Here's another example of your commitment to tradition OVER Scripture."
First of all this post is all ab out tradition and history. it is about Schaff's interpretation o Church history. So bringing in tradtion is not a big deal. I was not even the first to do so. Also tradition is the church's interpretation of Scripture. So by going to Schaff or Calvin or Luther one is going to tradtion. When one listens to another's interpretation of SCripture then one is looking towards tradition. Tradition is not against scripture.
"Scripture never accords this title to Mary, so why should we? I have a problem with the breezy way theologians of the past and people like you in the present start theologizing about Christological and then reason to such things as the appropriateness of giving a title to a concrete person. Christological concerns aren't the only concerns involved you know."
Scripture does not use the word Trinity either. nor any Latin liike you used earlier. So what! Also Christological concerns are very important. i never said they are the only concerns. However should we stop using the word Trinity because it is not in scripture (at all while scripture does allude to Mary the mother of jesus)?
"I can affirm everything you consider orthodox about Christ/Christology and yet say that calling Mark "Theotokos" is not necessary at this time in the history of the churches. Why? Because, when I read Scripture, I don't see Mary as being the type of person who would accept such a title or any other title that can lead to her veneration, no matter how well meaning it is intended. Consequently, I also deny that Mary is a person to be adored or venerated. If that makes me a "heretic" then that's a gem I want to be on the public record. I could care less about your motivations for using the term. If you want to use it, fine go right ahead, but you and Cyril and the 3rd Ecumenical Council aren't my rule of faith."
Mary is not a person to be adored or venerateed? Wow! now I do not worship Mary but that goes way beyond that. You know also that you are probably going against most of the reformers on this. They would look to Mary as someone who should be looked up to.
Also you could care less about my motivations. Then why even post? Also then i guess I should not bother with you since you are demonstrating that you are a fundamentalist. You do not care what others think. You are right and others are wrong. This is priceless.
You also said that the councils are not part o your rule of faith. okay then what is? Do you listen to no one except yourself? Do you alone have the HS guiding him? And why deny the term when you can believe what it means? Again do you deny the term Trinty because it gives many improper views of God and because it is not in scripture?
"Sure, she can be called "Theotokos" and is "Theotokos" as a matter of a logical syllogism, but logical syllogisms don't mean we should accord her such a title. Before we do that, we should, IMHO, ask ourselves if Mary would accept the title herself. I'd say that if it was the Queen of England too, or anybody else in the course of human events in any situation. For example, I don't think we should call people "saints" either, for similar reasons."
I think she would. Why not? also do you believe that God experienced in some way (however mysterious) birth during the birth of JC?
Blackhaw wrote:
ReplyDelete"Theotokos = mother or bearer of God."
Those aren't the same.
You write:
"And 'a mother of God' is not different than 'mother of god.'"
I didn't refer to "mother of God". I referred to "the mother of God", in response to your use of that phrase. And there is a difference between "a" and "the".
You write:
"Unless you think Schaff is accusing the early church of claiming that there is more than one mother of god."
There's more than one concept of Mary as the mother of God. Different people associate different ideas with Mary's relationship to the deity of Christ. Schaff can criticize one concept of Mary as the mother of God without denying that she can be considered the mother of God in another sense.
You write:
"So comparing my posts to Schaff does not work. Will you next compare one's speech to a ffriend while having lunch to Schaff?"
I didn't just mention your posts. I also mentioned that other historians, for example, sometimes don't communicate as clearly as they could. People don't normally respond to such errors by saying "WOW!" and making other comments like the ones you initially posted.
You write:
"He could very well be very ignorant of the heresies and conlicts. Sure he knows some thigns about them but not why Cyril and other church fathers called others who denied theotokos heretics."
Nothing you've said demonstrates that Schaff was ignorant in any relevant sense. You've complained that the one sentence you initially criticized doesn't explain some things that Schaff does explain elsewhere. But the fact that you can single out one sentence that can be read as reflecting ignorance on Schaff's part, if that one sentence is isolated from the surrounding context, doesn't suggest that Schaff is ignorant on the point in question.
And the reason men had for calling others heretics isn't the only relevant issue. If somebody referred to Mary as the mother of God in order to further a particular understanding of Christology, but that person also associated some other concepts with Mary's status as the mother of God, then Schaff can criticize the latter without criticizing the former. Your suggestion that Schaff should refrain from criticizing the use of the mother of God concept, since the primary motivation behind it was good, is ridiculous. If something is partly good and partly bad, even if the good part is the majority, it's valid to criticize the end product. Schaff acknowledges that Jesus is and always has been God, he acknowledges that Mary was His mother from the time of the incarnation, and he acknowledges a desire to affirm an orthodox Christology as part of the reason why Mary was identified as the mother of God. He doesn't have to refer to such facts in every sentence he writes related to this issue (like the sentence you criticized), and his evaluation of a person or group's view of Mary as the mother of God will involve everything they believed, not just their primary motive in calling Mary the mother of God.