[quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158224#msg158224 date=1343519776] [quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158217#msg158217 date=1343505310] Imikahil, I STRONGLY disagree with your position, but nevertheless thank you for clarifying your position.
It is not just Fr Athanasius, but Fr Tadros has said the same things as well. You are not saying why the church is not protesting against their incorrect teaching?? Why would their book be online or in stores, if as you say the sermon of the Pope is not accepted in COC ?? Would you not think Fr Athansius knows that as well?? The story told by Pope Tawodosios' is in the synaxarium of the COC.Why has it not been removed, if it is rejected by the church or is riddled with errors as you claim?? There are many questions that should be answered..
If the above views are yours only, then it is another matter.If not and whenever it is convinent for you, I shall be grateful for any OFFICIAL (not individual) church sources that supports your views on the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Thanks.
The Synexarium never said that St Mary's body united with her soul and that she is sitting at the right hand of God.
Abouna Tadros never said the above either.
Metropolitan Bishoy has already spoken against this heresy on his web site. Though he presented different reasons from the ones I did present here.
We have an old exposition in Tarteeb al bay3a manuscript which used to be read on the feast of st. Mary (16th of Misra) that never said that St Mary resurrected and sitting in Kingdom of Heaven. (the Synexarium is a partial section of this exposition)
The story od St. Mary's death and burial, in this alleged sermon by Pope Tawodosius, is different than what is in the Synexarium. This means it sets a different tradition than what is already has been received in the Church.
On top of that, This sermon is full of theological errors that cannot be written by our Pope Tawodosius. At best, it is forged.
The resurrection of St Mary is a Heresy that goes against the plan of salvation.
I will try once again!! You are convienently ignoring my specific questions.You are not required to answer them if you do not wish.But please let us not go in circles.
When I said Fr Tadros holds the same view as Fr Athansius , I was not speaking out of the blue. Unlike you, I am giving you links and sources. I love and have tremendous respect for our church clergy, teachers as well as handed-down traditions and I will defend them until kingdom comes.It is possible that I am in error and I will stand corrected as soon as I see the correct church teachings from church sources.
Please go to pages 123- 127.. This book has been in circulation since the 1970's.
Question #1 -- If there are errors in this book regarding the place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in heaven,why has'nt it been edited or why has'nt the church spoken against it?? Why are two priests teaching heresies or making the same dogmatic errors and yet the COC is saying NOTHING??
I asked you to cite me some references from official church sources and not individuals that teach the right dogma,namely that St Mary is not heaven , but in paradise until the day of Judgement. If you have some sources that backs up your view, please do share.
You said :
If you have read the book, you may have notice that he is advocating this position based on an alleged sermon by Pope Tawodosios which lacks authenticity within the Church. In fact, this sermon has many theological errors and is not accepted in the Coptic Church.
Please give us some church references/sources that proves the above claim..
So we do not go into circles as you suggested. Let's take one point at a time.
In this post I want only, if you would allow me, to discuss Fr. Tadros commentary on the matter.
I know that you have provided the link to his book "St. Mary in the Orthodox Concept".
I also appreciate you citing pages 123-127. However, I could not locate the idea of her soul being united to her body and that she has already inherited the Kingdom of God.
I need your help.
Can you please give the quote and the page, where he mentions that St. Mary resurrected and is now in the Kingdom of heaven?
Imikhail , Fr Tadros topic on the assumption is based on the story of Pope Theodosius, whose writings , according to you are supposed to have been REJECTED by the COC!! That should already tell you volumes .Neverthless, Abouna Tadros is merely mentioning in passing regarding St Mary's soul ,body or the resurrection , because that is not the intention of his book. However, based on his sources, he has implied it quite clearly that the body of St Mary is in HEAVEN ( there is no room for semantics or word play here ,for he could have used or emphasized on the word 'paradise if he had thought readers would be confused).
Jesus told the thief on his right hand that he would be with him in 'paradise' and not heaven, but he descended to take the body of His mother,whose womb is the "second heaven" to HEAVEN and not to paradise .
Moreover, for example, on page 126, it says:
Her Assumption(1) This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand of her Bridegroom and Son. It bears a powerful witness to the eschatological truth of our faith, i.e. “the world to come”.
Unless i am missing something, "The world to come" is talking about the resurrection.. and that St Mary is already in the resurrected state.
On page 128,last paragraph says :
The Lord came with the soul of His mother and asked the body to accompany Him. He took her into the chariot. The angels went before them, and a voice called “Peace to you, my brethren”
If the above is not obvious, why would the Lord come with the soul of His mother to her body??
While I am at it, I also have a second source that clearly explains this issue:
Please go to page 62 and read the last two paragraphs:
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158287#msg158287 date=1343677735] Lol...answering my questions by questioning me...
I do not know how is it a question, or why is it funny to ask for your help in citing specific quotes.
Imikhail , Fr Tadros topic on the assumption is based on the story of Pope Theodosius, whose writings , according to you are supposed to have been REJECTED by the COC!! That should already tell you volumes .Neverthless, Abouna Tadros is merely mentioning in passing regarding St Mary's soul ,body or the resurrection , because that is not the intention of his book. However, based on his sources, he has implied it quite clearly that the body of St Mary is in HEAVEN ( there is no room for semantics or word play here ,for he could have used or emphasized on the word 'paradise if he had thought readers would be confused).
I NEVER denied the fact that her body is in heaven. My contention is that she was resurrected and already inherited the Kingdom of God.
The idea of anyone inheriting the Kingdom of God before the second coming is an erroneous concept.
Do you see the difference between having the body assumed to heaven and having St. Mary's body and soul united together in the Kingdom? I hope you do.
I have proven to you that both Fr Tadros and Fr Athanasius are maintaining St Mary is in the glorified state. Now do me a favor ;go back and answer my questions..provide sources ,evidences for your assertions and claims..and we will take it from there...Peace out for now.
When you get the time, please go back and answer my questions..provide sources for your assertions..and we will take it from there...Peace out for now.
Why would I continue the discussion if we have not addressed the first point you raised that Fr. Tadros' opinion is like that of Fr. Athanasius.
You have failed to show the similarities. And now you provide a link to a sermon by Fr. Athanasius.
I have read his booklet. The idea of St. Mary's resurrection and inheritance of the Kingdom before the 2nd Coming is a heresy.
Anba Bishoy addressed.
None of the Holy Fathers of the Church said that St Mary was resurrected and is already in the Kingdom soul and body.
Fr Tadros source on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is based on the sermon of Pope Theodosius. This Pope's sermon is forged ,according to you. Abouna has not gone into detail to speak about the resurrection of St Mary, but he did imply it. You are not willing to be convinced about it ,because it does not fit with your assertion.
If I may ask, please explain to me how you understand this paragraph-
"Her Assumption(1) This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand of her Bridegroom and Son. It bears a powerful witness to the eschatological truth of our faith, i.e. “the world to come”.
If you still dont agree, then leave Fr Tadros for a moment and let us concentrate on Fr Athansius, another major theologian in the COC..I am interested in the following points..
Please provide evidence for these claims :
1) The sermon or story of Pope Theodosius is forged and unacceptable in the COC 2) The official COC's position that St Mary is not in the glorified state..(remember the issue here is St Mary only)
And please state your views as to why the church is tolerating false teaching by COC priests such as Fr Athanasius . Why hasnt part of Fr Tadros book that is based on the fake sermon of the Pope not been edited or entirely removed??
These questions should be easy for you to answer. If you do reply, then please with sources.. Thanks
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158297#msg158297 date=1343680901] Fr Tadros source on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is based on the sermon of Pope Theodosius. This Pope's sermon is forged ,according to you. Abouna has not gone into detail to speak about the resurrection of St Mary, but he did imply it. You are not willing to be convinced about it ,because it does not fit with your assertion.
If I may ask, please explain to me how you understand this paragraph-
"Her Assumption(1) This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand of her Bridegroom and Son. It bears a powerful witness to the eschatological truth of our faith, i.e. “the world to come”.
If you still dont agree, then leave Fr Tadros for a moment and let us concentrate on Fr Athansius, another major theologian in the COC..I am interested in the following points..
Please provide evidence for these claims :
1) The sermon or story of Pope Theodosius is forged and unacceptable in the COC 2) The official COC's position that St Mary is not in the glorified state..(remember the issue here is St Mary only)
And please state your views as to why the church is tolerating false teaching by COC priests such as Fr Athanasius . Why hasnt part of Fr Tadros book that is based on the fake sermon of the Pope not been edited or entirely removed??
These questions should be easy for you to answer. If you do reply, then please with sources.. Thanks
You keep switching from a point to the other.
I would not discuss Fr. Athanasius belief till we finish Fr. Tadros.
You are the one who said that Fr. Tadros agrees with Fr. Athanasius in the claim that St. Mary assumption is that she was resurrected and inherited the Kingdom of God.
The quote you presented is
"Her assumption commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s body into heaven as she preceded us and sat at the right hand of her Bridegroom and Son."
Does "entrance of St Mary's body" equate to resurrection and inheritance of the Kingdom of God? To me it does not.
In fact all the quotes deal with the body, not the resurrection nor the inheritance. Here are the quotes from the book you alledged that it agrees with Fr. Athanasius.
"Today the heavenly spirits have carried to heaven the holy body of the Virgin Theotokos, placing it among the angels to share in the unspeakable delights…"
"I salute the Assumption of the body which the human heart can never conceive . . ."
"The Lord did not permit that the body in which He Himself had dwelt and from which He had formed His own humanity become a prey to corruption and dissolution"
On the account of the St Mary's ody's appearance: ... till the 16th of Mesra her body was not ascended. The Lord came with the soul of His mother and asked the body to ccompany Him."
Again, do these references to the body amount to the resurrection of St Mary, the soul uniting to the soul and inheritance of the Kingdom?
Imikael, I have asked you to move on from Fr Tadors, not because I thought I was wrong,but because you are not willing to accept it. But to answer your question, yes I do think Fr Tadros is speaking about St Mary's glorified state. If he talks about the assumption,then he is basing his views on the pope's sermon. The pope's semon clearly states that st Mary is in the glorified state. Both Fr Tadors and Fr Athansius have the same source..Thus, eventhough ,Fr Tadros is not going into detail, because that is not what his book is all about, he is pointing it out..I stand by it.
You are also taking the paragraph I earlier mentioned out of context by omitting relevant information that points to the resurrected state of St Mary:
in order to capitalise on the word 'heaven" , You commented only on "This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand of her Bridegroom and Son .However,it also says " It bears a powerful witness to the eschatological truth of our faith, i.e.the world to come
What does the bold phrase mean to you??
If you don't agree that Fr Tadors is not in line with Fr Athansius teaching,then it still matters not. We can still move on, because there is Fr Athansius that we agree on who has written in detail concerning the glorified state of the Blessed mother. Then ,there is the writing by Fr Matta el Meskeen which I linked earlier. Please read it and then comment.
Having said that, please answer those questions i posed in post 127 having only Fr Athanasius in mind for the time being..
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158301#msg158301 date=1343684419] Imikael, I have asked you to move on from Fr Tadors, not because I thought I was wrong,but because you are not willing to accept it. But to answer your question, yes I do think Fr Tadros is speaking about St Mary's glorified state.
I take it you mean by St Mary's glorified state that she is resurrected.
If that is really what you read into it, then there is no need to continue the discussion. If you simply twist the words to fit an idea in your mind then there is no way we will come to an agreement.
Needles, to say that St. Mary's resurrection is a heresy founded on De Obitu S. Dominae an apocryphal writing.
You side with whatever suits you, I will side with the authentic Church teaching and with Metropolitan Bishoy.
"Allow me to praise You, O Most Holy Virgin; give me strength against your enemies."
imikhail, do you realize that your objections to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, in body and soul, based on two quotes from Scripture is precisely the objection of Protestants and Evangelicals against the Assumption of the Virgin?
If anyone is in need for supporting ideas, it would be you, as you're appealing to the same sources that Protestants use to attack the Holy Tradition of the Church Apostolic and Universal.
May I also ask you a question: why would the Virgin Mary await a general resurrection for the purpose of being judged along with all humanity, when God has already judged her once in her life: The Father looked from heaven, and saw no one else like her, and the angel proclaimed that she is full of grace. That was her judgement, and she remained full of grace.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=69.msg158308#msg158308 date=1343700393] "Allow me to praise You, O Most Holy Virgin; give me strength against your enemies."
imikhail, do you realize that your objections to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, in body and soul, based on two quotes from Scripture is precisely the objection of Protestants and Evangelicals against the Assumption of the Virgin?
So are you saying that the Scripture supports the idea of St Mary's resurrection and her inheritance of the Kingdom before the 2nd Coming?
If anyone is in need for supporting ideas, it would be you, as you're appealing to the same sources that Protestants use to attack the Holy Tradition of the Church Apostolic and Universal.
The last time I checked, I did not find the Protestants using the Tarteeb Al Bay3a. Neither do they use the Synexarium, neither do they use Khedmat al Shammas, the liturrgy books, the ajbeya, ...etc.
Also, the last time I checked, Metropolitan Anba Bishoy was still Orthodox.
May I also ask you a question: why would the Virgin Mary await a general resurrection for the purpose of being judged along with all humanity, when God has already judged her once in her life: The Father looked from heaven, and saw no one else like her, and the angel proclaimed that she is full of grace. That was her judgement, and she remained full of grace.
She also said that She is the servant of the Lord and that God is her savior Luke 1:47. Meaning that she also is in need of salvation and that she died on the hope of resurrection.
Now what does St. Paul say about those who slept in the Lord. He says: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thessalonians 4:14-16)
Do you see any exceptions here? Paul did NOT say: "And the dead in Christ will rise first except St Mary."
Never in the readings of the Church or her prayers, the resurrection of Mary is mentioned.
If this forged sermon by Tawodosius was the teaching of the Church, it would have been read in the last 14 centuries. However, this has never happened.
After all, the COC call the Assumption feast "The Assumption of the BODY of the Virgin Mary into Heaven" BODY not resurrection, not inheritance.
The Scriptures are clear, the Church prayers and readings are clear.
Do not go after a forged document that has no basis for authenticity and that contains teaching never in the Church of Alexandria was promoted.
"Allow me to praise You, O Most Holy Virgin; give me strength against your enemies."
What makes you think that the Lord did not descend to take up the body and soul of the Virgin Mary into heaven? There's no contradiction here with 1 Thess. 4:16, the Lord did come down with the angels to take up his mother.
Also, St. Paul was an Apostle, not a prophet. He would not say anything to the effect that this general rule that applies generally to all people would not apply to the Virgin Mary, who had not fulfilled her time on earth at the time of the writing of this letter. Also, the Virgin Mary was full of grace, as the archangel Gabriel proclaimed, and remained as such: THAT is an exception that cannot apply to any life in general. All humans are born in sin and continue to sin (and hopefully repent) in their lives, whereas that general rule did not apply to life of the immaculate Virgin Mary. As such, there is no reason why the Virgin Mary was not an exception to the general rule that all humans will rise from the dead to be judged in righteousness according to each one's deeds.
Be careful of what you say about our Lady who is full of grace!
Also, if Metro. Bishoy does not hold to what the Apostolic and Universal Church teaches, then he's not Orthodox. He already has very highly doubtful views in theology, and so his Orthodoxy is questionable, so bringing him up here on this topic does not aid your argument.
What makes you think that the Lord did not descend to take up the body and soul of the Virgin Mary into heaven? There's no contradiction here with 1 Thess. 4:16, the Lord did come down with the angels to take up his mother.
I believe you are confused.
There is difference between taking the soul and the body and uniting the soul to the body. What we are discussing here is not whether the Lord took her soul and body.
What we are discussing is the claim that she was reaurrected and inherited the Kingdom ( her soul is not in Paradise but is united to her body in the Kingdom).
We have two feasts in the Church: one for her dormition and one for the assumption of her body.
Forgive me for interjecting but i just want to comment.
I will not add any points as it pertains to the patristic heritage of this tradition as i feel that the very reverend father Athansius of Kitchener did a wonderful job of that and this has been supplemented by my brothers and sisters on this forum. I do however have a comment.
imikhail, and i dont mean this to 'attack you', you seem to be willing to state things and accept them of your own authority simply because you stated it. Its like the older generation of my own church with whom i run into disagreements with all the time when they state that something is the way it is because that is how they learned it (ex the issue of original guilt vs ancestral sin). You seem all to willing to dismiss evidence that disagrees with your position and i do not feel that you are doing yourself justice academically.
You cite your SOLE authority on this belief to be that of H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, and those opposing your point of view has cited back to you the two very reverend fathers, fr. Athanasius, and Fr. Tadros, who, along with our own Fr. Peter in my opinion, are the most theologically astute of our Church. You really have yet to defend your position against those of Fr. Athanasius and Fr. Tadros (and dont even try to argue that Fr. Tadros doesnt hold to this tradition).
Your argument about not accepting something solely due to its lack of usage cant stand any real test of logic. To prove that St. Theodosius' sermon is a forgery you must PROVE it and not simply use this rule by omission. Its well known that the works of holy fathers like St. Severus and St. Philoxenus have yet to be translated into arabic and likely feel into disuse in the medieval age in our own Coptic Church (i stand to be corrected on this as i am no authority on anything medieval :P). Their disuse never once caused people nowadays to second guess their legitimacy. By that logic most copts nowadays would simply say all the fathers are illegitimate as many have never even heard of them!
Take the evidence as it stands and understand it for what it conveys to us as opposed to asserting your own ideas and what you feel is 'logical'.
However, I am baffled that you ignore the Scriptures, the liturgical prayers and readings of the Church, the lack of any patristic tradition on the issue.
Yet you hold on to a sermon that is not used in the Church. You can believe whatever suits you but the Church tradition is clear and her teaching is that the assumption is for the BODY.
The resurrection of St. Mary will take place just like the rest of the believers. This is the teaching of the Church and her belief that is conveyed in every liturgy and during every feast of the assumption.
St. Mary is in heaven, united in body and soul. I don't care how big the hat on the man who said it was, the authority of those fathers who defed it bear more weight to me; chalcedonian or not.
Has anyone read the article by Fr. Athanasius aimed at HEM Pishoy about this was. There is but one word to describe it: AWESOME.
I will keep repeating this, the Church never recognized this forged sermon. The whole argument about St. Mary's resurrection is based on this sermon.
The Scriptures are against this. None of the holy fathers said this. None of the liturgical prayers support this The feast of assumption in our Church concerns only with the body
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158320#msg158320 date=1343737581] I will keep repeating this, the Church never recognized this forged sermon. The whole argument about St. Mary's resurrection is based on this sermon.
To say that the Church never recognized this "forged" sermon is dishonest. There is no proof that it was forged, and there is no proof that it isn't a part of the Tradition of the Church.
There is a large difference between saying: "Metropolitan Bishoy never recognized this sermon" and "the Church never recognized this sermon." Metro. Bishoy isn't the Church, nor is he the only one representing the Church.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=69.msg158321#msg158321 date=1343740990] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158320#msg158320 date=1343737581] I will keep repeating this, the Church never recognized this forged sermon. The whole argument about St. Mary's resurrection is based on this sermon.
To say that the Church never recognized this "forged" sermon is dishonest. There is no proof that it was forged, and there is no proof that it isn't a part of the Tradition of the Church.
It was not included in the Church readings, though it is not a recent discovery. This fact alone makes its contents doubtful.
The fact that its dogmatic views have no bearing on the feast of Assumption as it is celebrated and understood in the Church for centuries, makes its contents doubtful.
There is a large difference between saying: "Metropolitan Bishoy never recognized this sermon" and "the Church never recognized this sermon." Metro. Bishoy isn't the Church, nor is he the only one representing the Church.
This has nothing to do do with Met Bishoy. I brought him into the discussion because some on this thread said that noone of the clergy spoke against the thought of St. Mary's resurrection.
Our liturgical prayers, tradition, readings all speak against this heresy of resurrection and inheritance of the Kingdom before the second coming.
Above all, the scriptures are against this heresy.
I don't really want to get into this thread as I am busy completing a paper on the Traditional method of receiving Chalcedonians by confession of faith. But I was reading a sermon by Evodius of Rome, translated into Boharic Coptic dated to the mid-sixth century in Egypt, which says...
While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him.
Clearly this source, a liturgical homily for the feast of the Assumption, written to be recited on her feasts, DOES describe the body and soul of the Blessed Lady Mary, Ever-Virgin being united in this age.
Heresy is heresy no matter who produces it, i agree. That doesnt apply to this situation though. As you IM are in the wrong. Fr. Athanasius produced more than a few patristic references to back his view and all you seem to do is insist that you are right because you are right.
And what do you mean, "its not included in the church readings"? The writings of St. Peter the seal of the martyrs is not 'included in the church readings' and i dont see anyone claiming they have no value.
Prove to me thats its a forgery and i will reconsider. However, as it stands, abouna Athanasius has the fathers' testimonies and you do not.
And Father Peter has just substantiated the stance while i was typing this! :D
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158328#msg158328 date=1343748608] I don't really want to get into this thread as I am busy completing a paper on the Traditional method of receiving Chalcedonians by confession of faith. But I was reading a sermon by Evodius of Rome, translated into Boharic Coptic dated to the mid-sixth century in Egypt, which says...
While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him.
Clearly this source, a liturgical homily for the feast of the Assumption, written to be recited on her feasts, DOES describe the body and soul of the Blessed Lady Mary, Ever-Virgin being united in this age.
This work is not accepted in the Church. It is was compiled in the seventh century under the name Encomium in Mariam.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=69.msg158329#msg158329 date=1343748699] Heresy is heresy no matter who produces it, i agree. That doesnt apply to this situation though. As you IM are in the wrong. Fr. Athanasius produced more than a few patristic references to back his view and all you seem to do is insist that you are right because you are right.
Who are these Patristics?
And what do you mean, "its not included in the church readings"? The writings of St. Peter the seal of the martyrs is not 'included in the church readings' and i dont see anyone claiming they have no value.
I have done so in my previous posts
You are not getting the point. If this writing was authoritative it would have been read instead of the existing reading.
The existing one contradicts this sermon.
Prove to me thats its a forgery and i will reconsider. However, as it stands, abouna Athanasius has the fathers' testimonies and you do not.
Who are these fathers again?
And Father Peter has just substantiated the stance while i was typing this! :D
Of course the author is not Evodius of Rome living in the first century, but this IS quite clearly a Coptic homily used on the feasts of our Lady. This is how it has been preserved.
You have shown that Evodius is not the author, not a difficult task, but you have not shown that this homily was not used in the Church. Indeed the fact of its preservation shows that it was used in the Church. A homily that no-one was interested in would not be preserved, or indeed even written down.
You have not refuted anything. It is not enough for you just to insist that something is the way you wish it to be. You must show it by evidence. The evidence points to the fact that this homily, written to be used on the feasts of our Lady and preserved in at least 8 manuscripts in Coptic was indeed used, and popular. It would not be preserved in 8 known manuscripts unless people considered it important and useful and went to the cost and effort of duplicating it.
All you are doing is automatically dismissing any evidence that does not suit your argument. But it is not working because you are not treating the evidence fairly. You must, at the very least, acknowledge that a significant body of Orthodox Christians in Egypt DID accept the views that you insist are heresy. Perhaps they are, but you are trying to insist that none of these texts have any value, the popularity of this homily shows that is not an acceptable conclusion.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158328#msg158328 date=1343748608] While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him. Father bless,
Now, do not get me wrong, I do accept the assumption our Lady as a true tradition of the Church because that seems to be the direction where the Patristic literature points. But, are the translation of such passages like "we worshiped her" accurate? Or is it a mistranslation of a word meaning "veneration"?
How did Met. Bishoy react to Fr. Athanasius' book? This is not the first time HE has taught something controversial. A while ago, I skimmed through an article on his website where he criticized Max Michele for denying that we inherit the guilt of Adam at birth. As much as Max is a heretic, he is right in saying we do not inherit Adam's guilt. Unfortunately, this Augustinian innovation is all too common in the Coptic Church nowadays, even among Clergy and Bishops.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=69.msg158328#msg158328 date=1343748608] ... a sermon by Evodius of Rome, translated into Boharic Coptic dated to the mid-sixth century in Egypt, which says...
While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him.
What does "worshipped her" mean? Was the word Latria used here?
Or is the word used to mean bowed down respectfully. As much as we revear St. Mary the Holy Theotokos, Worship belongs only to God.
I don't know. I haven't time to source the original Coptic texts.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'.
Comments
[quote author=Ηεζεκιελ link=topic=69.msg158217#msg158217 date=1343505310]
Imikahil, I STRONGLY disagree with your position, but nevertheless thank you for clarifying your position.
It is not just Fr Athanasius, but Fr Tadros has said the same things as well. You are not saying why the church is not protesting against their incorrect teaching?? Why would their book be online or in stores, if as you say the sermon of the Pope is not accepted in COC ?? Would you not think Fr Athansius knows that as well?? The story told by Pope Tawodosios' is in the synaxarium of the COC.Why has it not been removed, if it is rejected by the church or is riddled with errors as you claim?? There are many questions that should be answered..
If the above views are yours only, then it is another matter.If not and whenever it is convinent for you, I shall be grateful for any OFFICIAL (not individual) church sources that supports your views on the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Thanks.
The Synexarium never said that St Mary's body united with her soul and that she is sitting at the right hand of God.
Abouna Tadros never said the above either.
Metropolitan Bishoy has already spoken against this heresy on his web site. Though he presented different reasons from the ones I did present here.
We have an old exposition in Tarteeb al bay3a manuscript which used to be read on the feast of st. Mary (16th of Misra) that never said that St Mary resurrected and sitting in Kingdom of Heaven. (the Synexarium is a partial section of this exposition)
The story od St. Mary's death and burial, in this alleged sermon by Pope Tawodosius, is different than what is in the Synexarium. This means it sets a different tradition than what is already has been received in the Church.
On top of that, This sermon is full of theological errors that cannot be written by our Pope Tawodosius. At best, it is forged.
The resurrection of St Mary is a Heresy that goes against the plan of salvation.
I will try once again!! You are convienently ignoring my specific questions.You are not required to answer them if you do not wish.But please let us not go in circles.
When I said Fr Tadros holds the same view as Fr Athansius , I was not speaking out of the blue. Unlike you, I am giving you links and sources. I love and have tremendous respect for our church clergy, teachers as well as handed-down traditions and I will defend them until kingdom comes.It is possible that I am in error and I will stand corrected as soon as I see the correct church teachings from church sources.
Fr Tadros Book:
http://www.saint-mary.net/coptic_faith/SaintMaryintheOrthodoxConcept.pdf
Please go to pages 123- 127.. This book has been in circulation since the 1970's.
Question #1 -- If there are errors in this book regarding the place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in heaven,why has'nt it been edited or why has'nt the church spoken against it?? Why are two priests teaching heresies or making the same dogmatic errors and yet the COC is saying NOTHING??
I asked you to cite me some references from official church sources and not individuals that teach the right dogma,namely that St Mary is not heaven , but in paradise until the day of Judgement. If you have some sources that backs up your view, please do share.
You said : Please give us some church references/sources that proves the above claim..
So we do not go into circles as you suggested. Let's take one point at a time.
In this post I want only, if you would allow me, to discuss Fr. Tadros commentary on the matter.
I know that you have provided the link to his book "St. Mary in the Orthodox Concept".
I also appreciate you citing pages 123-127. However, I could not locate the idea of her soul being united to her body and that she has already inherited the Kingdom of God.
I need your help.
Can you please give the quote and the page, where he mentions that St. Mary resurrected and is now in the Kingdom of heaven?
Thank you.
Imikhail , Fr Tadros topic on the assumption is based on the story of Pope Theodosius, whose writings , according to you are supposed to have been REJECTED by the COC!! That should already tell you volumes .Neverthless, Abouna Tadros is merely mentioning in passing regarding St Mary's soul ,body or the resurrection , because that is not the intention of his book. However, based on his sources, he has implied it quite clearly that the body of St Mary is in HEAVEN ( there is no room for semantics or word play here ,for he could have used or emphasized on the word 'paradise if he had thought readers would be confused).
Jesus told the thief on his right hand that he would be with him in 'paradise' and not heaven, but he descended to take the body of His mother,whose womb is the "second heaven" to HEAVEN and not to paradise .
Moreover, for example, on page 126, it says:
Her Assumption(1)
This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s
body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand
of her Bridegroom and Son. It bears a powerful witness to the
eschatological truth of our faith, i.e. “the world to come”.
Unless i am missing something, "The world to come" is talking about the resurrection.. and that St Mary is already in the resurrected state.
On page 128,last paragraph says :
The Lord came with the soul of His mother
and asked the body to accompany Him. He took her into the
chariot. The angels went before them, and a voice called “Peace
to you, my brethren”
If the above is not obvious, why would the Lord come with the soul of His mother to her body??
While I am at it, I also have a second source that clearly explains this issue:
Please go to page 62 and read the last two paragraphs:
Feast of the Assumption of the Body of Virgin Mary - Fr Matta El Meskeen
If you show me my errors, I will stand corrected!!
Lol...answering my questions by questioning me...
I do not know how is it a question, or why is it funny to ask for your help in citing specific quotes. I NEVER denied the fact that her body is in heaven. My contention is that she was resurrected and already inherited the Kingdom of God.
The idea of anyone inheriting the Kingdom of God before the second coming is an erroneous concept.
Do you see the difference between having the body assumed to heaven and having St. Mary's body and soul united together in the Kingdom? I hope you do.
Imikahail, I hope you find the following sermon edifying and enlightening:
The Feast of the Assumption
I have proven to you that both Fr Tadros and Fr Athanasius are maintaining St Mary is in the glorified state. Now do me a favor ;go back and answer my questions..provide sources ,evidences for your assertions and claims..and we will take it from there...Peace out for now.
Imikahail, I hope you find the following sermon edifying and enlightening:
The Feast of the Assumption
When you get the time, please go back and answer my questions..provide sources for your assertions..and we will take it from there...Peace out for now.
Why would I continue the discussion if we have not addressed the first point you raised that Fr. Tadros' opinion is like that of Fr. Athanasius.
You have failed to show the similarities. And now you provide a link to a sermon by Fr. Athanasius.
I have read his booklet. The idea of St. Mary's resurrection and inheritance of the Kingdom before the 2nd Coming is a heresy.
Anba Bishoy addressed.
None of the Holy Fathers of the Church said that St Mary was resurrected and is already in the Kingdom soul and body.
If I may ask, please explain to me how you understand this paragraph-
"Her Assumption(1)
This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s
body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand
of her Bridegroom and Son. It bears a powerful witness to the
eschatological truth of our faith, i.e. “the world to come”.
If you still dont agree, then leave Fr Tadros for a moment and let us concentrate on Fr Athansius, another major theologian in the COC..I am interested in the following points..
Please provide evidence for these claims :
1) The sermon or story of Pope Theodosius is forged and unacceptable in the COC
2) The official COC's position that St Mary is not in the glorified state..(remember the issue here is St Mary only)
And please state your views as to why the church is tolerating false teaching by COC priests such as Fr Athanasius . Why hasnt part of Fr Tadros book that is based on the fake sermon of the Pope not been edited or entirely removed??
These questions should be easy for you to answer. If you do reply, then please with sources.. Thanks
Fr Tadros source on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is based on the sermon of Pope Theodosius. This Pope's sermon is forged ,according to you. Abouna has not gone into detail to speak about the resurrection of St Mary, but he did imply it. You are not willing to be convinced about it ,because it does not fit with your assertion.
If I may ask, please explain to me how you understand this paragraph-
"Her Assumption(1)
This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s
body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand
of her Bridegroom and Son. It bears a powerful witness to the
eschatological truth of our faith, i.e. “the world to come”.
If you still dont agree, then leave Fr Tadros for a moment and let us concentrate on Fr Athansius, another major theologian in the COC..I am interested in the following points..
Please provide evidence for these claims :
1) The sermon or story of Pope Theodosius is forged and unacceptable in the COC
2) The official COC's position that St Mary is not in the glorified state..(remember the issue here is St Mary only)
And please state your views as to why the church is tolerating false teaching by COC priests such as Fr Athanasius . Why hasnt part of Fr Tadros book that is based on the fake sermon of the Pope not been edited or entirely removed??
These questions should be easy for you to answer. If you do reply, then please with sources.. Thanks
You keep switching from a point to the other.
I would not discuss Fr. Athanasius belief till we finish Fr. Tadros.
You are the one who said that Fr. Tadros agrees with Fr. Athanasius in the claim that St. Mary assumption is that she was resurrected and inherited the Kingdom of God.
The quote you presented is
"Her assumption commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s body into heaven as she preceded us and sat at the right hand of her Bridegroom and Son."
Does "entrance of St Mary's body" equate to resurrection and inheritance of the Kingdom of God? To me it does not.
In fact all the quotes deal with the body, not the resurrection nor the inheritance. Here are the quotes from the book you alledged that it agrees with Fr. Athanasius.
"Today the heavenly spirits have carried to heaven the holy body of the Virgin Theotokos, placing it among the angels to share in the unspeakable delights…"
"I salute the Assumption of the body which the human heart can never conceive . . ."
"The Lord did not permit that the body in which He Himself had dwelt and from which He had formed His own humanity become a prey to corruption and dissolution"
On the account of the St Mary's ody's appearance:
... till the 16th of Mesra her body was not ascended. The Lord came with the soul of His mother and asked the body to ccompany Him."
Again, do these references to the body amount to the resurrection of St Mary, the soul uniting to the soul and inheritance of the Kingdom?
You are also taking the paragraph I earlier mentioned out of context by omitting relevant information that points to the resurrected state of St Mary:
in order to capitalise on the word 'heaven" , You commented only on "This feast commemorates the entrance of St. Mary’s body into heaven, as she preceded us and sat at the right hand of her Bridegroom and Son .However,it also says " It bears a powerful witness to the eschatological truth of our faith, i.e.the world to come
What does the bold phrase mean to you??
If you don't agree that Fr Tadors is not in line with Fr Athansius teaching,then it still matters not. We can still move on, because there is Fr Athansius that we agree on who has written in detail concerning the glorified state of the Blessed mother. Then ,there is the writing by Fr Matta el Meskeen which I linked earlier. Please read it and then comment.
Having said that, please answer those questions i posed in post 127 having only Fr Athanasius in mind for the time being..
will follow up tomorrow!
Imikael, I have asked you to move on from Fr Tadors, not because I thought I was wrong,but because you are not willing to accept it. But to answer your question, yes I do think Fr Tadros is speaking about St Mary's glorified state.
I take it you mean by St Mary's glorified state that she is resurrected.
If that is really what you read into it, then there is no need to continue the discussion. If you simply twist the words to fit an idea in your mind then there is no way we will come to an agreement.
Needles, to say that St. Mary's resurrection is a heresy founded on De Obitu S. Dominae an apocryphal writing.
You side with whatever suits you, I will side with the authentic Church teaching and with Metropolitan Bishoy.
imikhail, do you realize that your objections to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, in body and soul, based on two quotes from Scripture is precisely the objection of Protestants and Evangelicals against the Assumption of the Virgin?
If anyone is in need for supporting ideas, it would be you, as you're appealing to the same sources that Protestants use to attack the Holy Tradition of the Church Apostolic and Universal.
May I also ask you a question: why would the Virgin Mary await a general resurrection for the purpose of being judged along with all humanity, when God has already judged her once in her life: The Father looked from heaven, and saw no one else like her, and the angel proclaimed that she is full of grace. That was her judgement, and she remained full of grace.
"Allow me to praise You, O Most Holy Virgin; give me strength against your enemies."
imikhail, do you realize that your objections to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, in body and soul, based on two quotes from Scripture is precisely the objection of Protestants and Evangelicals against the Assumption of the Virgin?
So are you saying that the Scripture supports the idea of St Mary's resurrection and her inheritance of the Kingdom before the 2nd Coming? The last time I checked, I did not find the Protestants using the Tarteeb Al Bay3a. Neither do they use the Synexarium, neither do they use Khedmat al Shammas, the liturrgy books, the ajbeya, ...etc.
Also, the last time I checked, Metropolitan Anba Bishoy was still Orthodox. She also said that She is the servant of the Lord and that God is her savior Luke 1:47. Meaning that she also is in need of salvation and that she died on the hope of resurrection.
Now what does St. Paul say about those who slept in the Lord. He says: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thessalonians 4:14-16)
Do you see any exceptions here? Paul did NOT say: "And the dead in Christ will rise first except St Mary."
Never in the readings of the Church or her prayers, the resurrection of Mary is mentioned.
If this forged sermon by Tawodosius was the teaching of the Church, it would have been read in the last 14 centuries. However, this has never happened.
After all, the COC call the Assumption feast "The Assumption of the BODY of the Virgin Mary into Heaven" BODY not resurrection, not inheritance.
The Scriptures are clear, the Church prayers and readings are clear.
Do not go after a forged document that has no basis for authenticity and that contains teaching never in the Church of Alexandria was promoted.
What makes you think that the Lord did not descend to take up the body and soul of the Virgin Mary into heaven? There's no contradiction here with 1 Thess. 4:16, the Lord did come down with the angels to take up his mother.
Also, St. Paul was an Apostle, not a prophet. He would not say anything to the effect that this general rule that applies generally to all people would not apply to the Virgin Mary, who had not fulfilled her time on earth at the time of the writing of this letter. Also, the Virgin Mary was full of grace, as the archangel Gabriel proclaimed, and remained as such: THAT is an exception that cannot apply to any life in general. All humans are born in sin and continue to sin (and hopefully repent) in their lives, whereas that general rule did not apply to life of the immaculate Virgin Mary. As such, there is no reason why the Virgin Mary was not an exception to the general rule that all humans will rise from the dead to be judged in righteousness according to each one's deeds.
Be careful of what you say about our Lady who is full of grace!
Also, if Metro. Bishoy does not hold to what the Apostolic and Universal Church teaches, then he's not Orthodox. He already has very highly doubtful views in theology, and so his Orthodoxy is questionable, so bringing him up here on this topic does not aid your argument.
There is difference between taking the soul and the body and uniting the soul to the body. What we are discussing here is not whether the Lord took her soul and body.
What we are discussing is the claim that she was reaurrected and inherited the Kingdom ( her soul is not in Paradise but is united to her body in the Kingdom).
We have two feasts in the Church: one for her dormition and one for the assumption of her body.
I will not add any points as it pertains to the patristic heritage of this tradition as i feel that the very reverend father Athansius of Kitchener did a wonderful job of that and this has been supplemented by my brothers and sisters on this forum. I do however have a comment.
imikhail, and i dont mean this to 'attack you', you seem to be willing to state things and accept them of your own authority simply because you stated it. Its like the older generation of my own church with whom i run into disagreements with all the time when they state that something is the way it is because that is how they learned it (ex the issue of original guilt vs ancestral sin). You seem all to willing to dismiss evidence that disagrees with your position and i do not feel that you are doing yourself justice academically.
You cite your SOLE authority on this belief to be that of H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, and those opposing your point of view has cited back to you the two very reverend fathers, fr. Athanasius, and Fr. Tadros, who, along with our own Fr. Peter in my opinion, are the most theologically astute of our Church. You really have yet to defend your position against those of Fr. Athanasius and Fr. Tadros (and dont even try to argue that Fr. Tadros doesnt hold to this tradition).
Your argument about not accepting something solely due to its lack of usage cant stand any real test of logic. To prove that St. Theodosius' sermon is a forgery you must PROVE it and not simply use this rule by omission. Its well known that the works of holy fathers like St. Severus and St. Philoxenus have yet to be translated into arabic and likely feel into disuse in the medieval age in our own Coptic Church (i stand to be corrected on this as i am no authority on anything medieval :P). Their disuse never once caused people nowadays to second guess their legitimacy. By that logic most copts nowadays would simply say all the fathers are illegitimate as many have never even heard of them!
Take the evidence as it stands and understand it for what it conveys to us as opposed to asserting your own ideas and what you feel is 'logical'.
Forgive me if i have offended in any way.
However, I am baffled that you ignore the Scriptures, the liturgical prayers and readings of the Church, the lack of any patristic tradition on the issue.
Yet you hold on to a sermon that is not used in the Church. You can believe whatever suits you but the Church tradition is clear and her teaching is that the assumption is for the BODY.
The resurrection of St. Mary will take place just like the rest of the believers. This is the teaching of the Church and her belief that is conveyed in every liturgy and during every feast of the assumption.
St. Mary is in heaven, united in body and soul. I don't care how big the hat on the man who said it was, the authority of those fathers who defed it bear more weight to me; chalcedonian or not.
Has anyone read the article by Fr. Athanasius aimed at HEM Pishoy about this was. There is but one word to describe it: AWESOME.
ReturnOrthodoxy
The Scriptures are against this.
None of the holy fathers said this.
None of the liturgical prayers support this
The feast of assumption in our Church concerns only with the body
I will keep repeating this, the Church never recognized this forged sermon. The whole argument about St. Mary's resurrection is based on this sermon.
To say that the Church never recognized this "forged" sermon is dishonest. There is no proof that it was forged, and there is no proof that it isn't a part of the Tradition of the Church.
There is a large difference between saying: "Metropolitan Bishoy never recognized this sermon" and "the Church never recognized this sermon." Metro. Bishoy isn't the Church, nor is he the only one representing the Church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=69.msg158320#msg158320 date=1343737581]
I will keep repeating this, the Church never recognized this forged sermon. The whole argument about St. Mary's resurrection is based on this sermon.
To say that the Church never recognized this "forged" sermon is dishonest. There is no proof that it was forged, and there is no proof that it isn't a part of the Tradition of the Church.
It was not included in the Church readings, though it is not a recent discovery. This fact alone makes its contents doubtful.
The fact that its dogmatic views have no bearing on the feast of Assumption as it is celebrated and understood in the Church for centuries, makes its contents doubtful. This has nothing to do do with Met Bishoy. I brought him into the discussion because some on this thread said that noone of the clergy spoke against the thought of St. Mary's resurrection.
Our liturgical prayers, tradition, readings all speak against this heresy of resurrection and inheritance of the Kingdom before the second coming.
Above all, the scriptures are against this heresy.
I second your sentiment. Pretty much anything produced by abouna Athanasius is pure gold and we are lucky to have him in Canada! :D
RO,
I second your sentiment. Pretty much anything produced by abouna Athanasius is pure gold and we are lucky to have him in Canada! :D
Heresy is a heresy no matter who produces it.
St. Mary's resurrection is against the liturgical prayers, the Scriptures, the tradition even if you think it is pure gold.
While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him.
Clearly this source, a liturgical homily for the feast of the Assumption, written to be recited on her feasts, DOES describe the body and soul of the Blessed Lady Mary, Ever-Virgin being united in this age.
And what do you mean, "its not included in the church readings"? The writings of St. Peter the seal of the martyrs is not 'included in the church readings' and i dont see anyone claiming they have no value.
Prove to me thats its a forgery and i will reconsider. However, as it stands, abouna Athanasius has the fathers' testimonies and you do not.
And Father Peter has just substantiated the stance while i was typing this! :D
I don't really want to get into this thread as I am busy completing a paper on the Traditional method of receiving Chalcedonians by confession of faith. But I was reading a sermon by Evodius of Rome, translated into Boharic Coptic dated to the mid-sixth century in Egypt, which says...
While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him.
Clearly this source, a liturgical homily for the feast of the Assumption, written to be recited on her feasts, DOES describe the body and soul of the Blessed Lady Mary, Ever-Virgin being united in this age.
This work is not accepted in the Church. It is was compiled in the seventh century under the name Encomium in Mariam.
You can read more about it here
http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/cce/id/829/rec/6
Heresy is heresy no matter who produces it, i agree. That doesnt apply to this situation though. As you IM are in the wrong. Fr. Athanasius produced more than a few patristic references to back his view and all you seem to do is insist that you are right because you are right.
Who are these Patristics? I have done so in my previous posts
You are not getting the point. If this writing was authoritative it would have been read instead of the existing reading.
The existing one contradicts this sermon. Who are these fathers again? I have already refuted it.
Of course the author is not Evodius of Rome living in the first century, but this IS quite clearly a Coptic homily used on the feasts of our Lady. This is how it has been preserved.
You have shown that Evodius is not the author, not a difficult task, but you have not shown that this homily was not used in the Church. Indeed the fact of its preservation shows that it was used in the Church. A homily that no-one was interested in would not be preserved, or indeed even written down.
You have not refuted anything. It is not enough for you just to insist that something is the way you wish it to be. You must show it by evidence. The evidence points to the fact that this homily, written to be used on the feasts of our Lady and preserved in at least 8 manuscripts in Coptic was indeed used, and popular. It would not be preserved in 8 known manuscripts unless people considered it important and useful and went to the cost and effort of duplicating it.
All you are doing is automatically dismissing any evidence that does not suit your argument. But it is not working because you are not treating the evidence fairly. You must, at the very least, acknowledge that a significant body of Orthodox Christians in Egypt DID accept the views that you insist are heresy. Perhaps they are, but you are trying to insist that none of these texts have any value, the popularity of this homily shows that is not an acceptable conclusion.
While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him.
Father bless,
Now, do not get me wrong, I do accept the assumption our Lady as a true tradition of the Church because that seems to be the direction where the Patristic literature points. But, are the translation of such passages like "we worshiped her" accurate? Or is it a mistranslation of a word meaning "veneration"?
How did Met. Bishoy react to Fr. Athanasius' book? This is not the first time HE has taught something controversial. A while ago, I skimmed through an article on his website where he criticized Max Michele for denying that we inherit the guilt of Adam at birth. As much as Max is a heretic, he is right in saying we do not inherit Adam's guilt. Unfortunately, this Augustinian innovation is all too common in the Coptic Church nowadays, even among Clergy and Bishops.
... a sermon by Evodius of Rome, translated into Boharic Coptic dated to the mid-sixth century in Egypt, which says...
While our Saviour was yet speaking with us, we heard hymns in the height. Straightway we looked, and saw a great chariot of light. It came and stayed in our midst; Cherubim drawing it, the holy Virgin Mary sitting upon it, and shining ten thousand times more than the sun and the moon. And we were in fear, and fell on our face, and worshipped her; and she stretched forth her hand towards us all, and blessed us, and gave us the salutation of peace. Again we worshipped her, being in great joy and exultation; and she told us great and hidden mysteries, which it is not lawful to manifest because of the men that are unfaithful. And the Lord called into the tomb, and raised the body of His virgin mother, and put her soul into her body again; and we saw it living in the body even as it was with us formerly, wearing the flesh. And our Saviour stretched out His hand, and set her on the chariot with Him.
What does "worshipped her" mean? Was the word Latria used here?
Or is the word used to mean bowed down respectfully. As much as we revear St. Mary the Holy Theotokos, Worship belongs only to God.
That wasn't really the point I was quoting these texts for. Don't forget that in formal English worship does not mean the adoration due only to God. This is why judges are 'Your Worship'. In English the word derives from the Old English meaning 'worthy of honour'.