OK, my first submission, I hope it is a reasonable start. Edited a bit from Wikipedia to make it 'Orthocentric'. I couldn't bear to see a empty link for our Lord's mother.
(oops, just discovered the minor edit flag, sorry 'bout that)
--Rdr. Chris 19:15, 24 Jan 2005 (CST)
- OK. The two articles are merged. Not sure if that was the wiki way to do it, but it seems to have done what I wanted with no dataloss. Please be sure to correct me if that's bad form. --Basil 22:10, 27 Jan 2005 (CST)
- Hi, I found it very difficult to read through the material, so I have modified the 'formatting' of it. All I did was cut and paste ..then change a few of the headings to make the article 'look' cleaner ... -- Vasiliki 22:19, January 28, 2008 (PST)
Hi. I know the discussion page probably isn't really the place for this, but could someone explain to me what is exactly the actual dogmatic belief of Mary? I was raised Roman Catholic so I know that side of it...What are Orthodox Dogmas concerning Mary? I know that Cathlolics believe in the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption and Ever-Virginity as Dogma, but I have read that the only actual Ortodox Dogma is the "Theotokos", and that to not accept the other three is not punishable by anathema...is this true? What level of importance does Mary hold in the Orthodox Tradition, and, is she more or less honored than in Roman Catholicism? Sorry for cluttering up the discussion page...Thanks. Acedaroflebanon 03:35, March 19, 2006 (CST)
- The theologically-educated should feel free to quickly correct me if I am wrong on any of these points; but, as I understand the Church's teaching, the Orthodox do believe in the ever-virginity of the Mother of God (as seen in the Liturgy), and we also believe that she was bodily taken into heaven after she reposed. We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception because that assumes that all are born with original sin, which is not a Church teaching (see [[Nativity of the Theotokos. Not sure on comparisons between Orthodox veneration and Catholic, but she is seen as, for lack of a better word, first among humans before God, and is, in the more common Eastern Rite, always seen on the iconostasis, usually depicting Christ, opposite an icon of Christ Himself. Hope this helps, — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 11:38, March 19, 2006 (CST)
- That sounds like a good idea. (This page should be for info on the Theotokos.) A page that has a write-up on Theotokos icons in general can have a icon gallery that links to descriptions and histories of specific icons of the Theotokos. Andrew 08:38, May 18, 2006 (CDT)
I think this quote was meant to explain the use of the word 'until' in Matthew 1:25: but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. (i.e., that Joseph didn't know her also after she gave birth to Jesus!)
"Finally, in the Gospel according to St. Matthew 28:20 Our Lord says, "I am with you always, until (eos) the end of the age." We know that Christ does not therefore abandon us at the end of time!"
I think we should keep the above text by Chyro?
--Arbible 02:51, October 17, 2006 (CDT)
Theotokos as an English word is not a Latinized spelling but a transliteration of the Greek (bar the accent). A Latinized spelling would be Theotocus. Copey 23:40, October 24, 2006 (CDT)
- No arguments here. Feel free to change the article text. — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:44, October 25, 2006 (CDT)
Testimony From the Protestant Reformers
Hi, for the mere sake of respect for this forum, I would not dare to delete some one elses work, however, I definately would like to say that I do not see the value or the worth in devoting a massive paragraph to the 'testimony' of Protestant reformers? I mean ... how does this really promote and enhance Orthodox awareness to an already lengthy article which is in serious need of clean up? I would like to challenge the removal of this paragraph or rewording it to be more generic like ....Other religions perspective of the Theotokos - rather than a specific focul groups point of view ...even if it is in line with the Orthodox ... sorry to offend ...not trying to eb aggressive just sort of reading this for the first time as an outsider and thought .. relevance? -- Vasiliki 21:26, January 28, 2008 (PST)
- You're right that it could probably stand some summarizing. The idea was essentially to show that almost all Christians everywhere have accepted the Theotokos's ever-virginity until very recently. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 05:51, January 29, 2008 (PST)
Doesn't the Greek "All-Holy" correspond to the Hebrew "holy of holies"? AFAIK, both denote superlative degrees, so they both mean basically "most holy". In Mary, just as behind the curtain in the temple, God and man meet. At the Crucifixion, the temple curtain was torn open, and the holy of holies was no longer "separated out" (i.e. holy) from the rest of the world. --Gus3 05:45, April 11, 2008 (UTC)
- There is not a direct translational correspondence. In Greek, panagia is "all-holy," while hyperagia is "most-holy." I don't have my lexicon and Greek Bible on hand, but "holy of holies" would be something else. There is, of course, a poetic and typological correspondence, though these terms may also refer to God Himself, for instance, or to parts of the church building.
- In any event, there is not an allegorical correspondence, so that we may take what happens to one side of the metaphorical equation and apply it to all others. Though we in some sense regard the Theotokos as the "Holy of Holies" as in the Temple, there is no equivalent in her of the tearing of the veil or the eventual departure of God's presence from the Temple and its destruction by the Romans.
- With regard to the Temple in Jerusalem, the tearing of the veil is traditionally interpreted not as a "de-sanctification" of the Holy of Holies, but rather as an indication that God has come out to His people, which we see re-presented most clearly when the Chalice containing the Body and Blood of Christ comes out of the new Holy of Holies in an Orthodox church so that the people may commune directly with God. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 11:18, April 11, 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding of "Panagia" is that it means that the Mother of God has become completely purified of defilement and sin (because of the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation) and is thus left solely as a holy being. To interpret it to mean a superlative may be theologically in error, because in comparison to the Lord Jesus, Mary cannot be viewed as of the greatest level of holiness. As typically taught by Orthodox theologians, the Mother of God inherited the ancestral curse of broken communion with God and lack of sanctifying grace ("original sin"), whereas the Lord Jesus was born incapable of being born with this curse because of His total oneness with the Holy Spirit. However, Mary, in being purified of this curse at the Annunciation, can be understood as "All-Holy".
- One thing I am still left wondering by this article is why there appears to be no discussion as to the matter of Mary's sinlessness. Sure, the section on "Panagia" touches slightly on the matter, but there really isn't any coverage as to the theological opinions as to whether Mary was with personal sin or not and whether she was born with or without original sin or whether she was later purified of it. Does anyone have any idea as to why this is? Deusveritasest 06:46, January 20, 2009 (UTC)
Those issues are discussed somewhat under "Immaculate" in the article. --Fr Lev 13:01, January 21, 2009 (UTC)