So, what else do the Orthodox believe about the Theotokos

Well, Dave asked me to enumerate what else the Orthodox believe about the Theotokos. This list is in addition to what was mentioned previously.

1.  Almost of all us believe that she was assumed into heaven – but we think the Roman Church was very wrong to label this a dogma.

2.  There is a debate among us over whether Mary lived a sinless life, but we all agree that she was not born incapable of sin – so we do disagree with the Immaculate Conception. Now, I phrased it that way because one of our debates between the Roman Church and ourselves is over the subject of original sin. We consider the conception of the West to be not original sin, but rather, original guilt. So, we do not see anyone as being born carrying Adam’s guilt. We see them born carrying Adam’s corruption. Those are two different ideas, in our viewpoint.

3.  We do believe in the intercession of the Theotokos and of the saints – but we would agree with Luther that there is no such thing as a treasury of grace from into which, somehow, the saints manage to contribute, and from which the Church can, somehow, draw.

4.  We definitely believe that Mary was involved in the mystery of salvation, but . . . – we mean it in a very different way than you might expect. Look back at yesterdays post and you will see something of how we mean it.

Over the next couple of days, I will work on the list above. However, a comment on an earlier post asked me about the Theotokos being Ever-Virgin, and how it came about. Now, though it is obvious let me mention that all conservative Christians, of whatever background believe that the Theotokos was a virgin at the time of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is not in question.

But, why do we consider her Ever-Virgin? Well, there are two indications in Scripture that point to her ongoing virginity, and that the “brothers and sisters” mentioned are not her natural children. One is in the passage in St. Luke when Jesus is twelve and going to the Temple for what was probably his Bar-Mitzvah. It is odd that none of the brothers and sisters are mentioned at this time, despite the fact that it is obvious that they traveled in a family grouping. One would think they would be mentioned as well, but the traveling party appears to be solely Joseph, Mary, and Jesus.

But, the strongest indicator, is at the time of the death of Jesus. The Old Testament repeatedly emphasizes the importance of family. Land is held in the name of the family. At the beginning of the Year of Jubilee, all land returns to the family. The whole point of the Book of Ruth is the redemption, not just of Naomi, but also of the land through the provision of an inheritor. Roman Law was also equally family oriented. Yet, Our Lord Jesus gives his mother to a non-family member. And, Christian tradition, which even Protestants agree with, is that Mary remains the rest of her life with St. John.

It is our American individualistic culture that we do not even think twice of that being possible in such a culture.  (At least the Anabaptists thought about that issue.) Had Mary had other sons and daughters, not only would Our Lord Jesus have expected them to take care of the Virgin Mary, but his family would have also insisted on taking care of her. You have to realize what a loss of honor, and what a contradiction of culture it would be (again, see Ruth) for a non-family member to take care of Mary, if there were biological children directly available. This is why Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) called it “ignorant” to believe anything other than she was Ever-Virgin. Medieval culture was significantly closer, as far as family relationships are concerned, to Jewish culture than we are.

Now Dave asked me how the belief in the Ever-Virgin Mary grew. The answer is that it never grew. Any Early Church writings that refer to Mary always refer to her as a virgin. There is no such pattern of development in Church history among the orthodox Fathers. Having said that, one can find a couple of the not-orthodox (heretics) claiming otherwise. It is noteworthy that Early Church writers, like St. Jerome, not only support her being Ever-Virgin in a monograph, but also claim that this is the belief of antiquity, not a new thing.

In fact, the more important question is when did some stop believing that she was Ever-Virgin? The answer, as I have demonstrated in a previous post, is only with the Anabaptists, since the Reformers unanimously believed that what they had received from the Early Church was correct on this point.

I have already mentioned that the Orthodox will not require one to believe that the Theotokos was Ever-Virgin.  Nor will there be punishments if one does not believe that the Theotokos was Ever-Virgin. But, we certainly will look at such a one as though that one were a two-headed oddity. We are every bit as convinced as Jean Cauvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley and C.S .Lewis, that both Holy Scripture, and what we can see in Church history, as well as Holy Tradition all say Ever-Virgin.