The Collapse of Cultural Catholicism

as you well know, the early Church did not hold to “Scripture alone” nor did it hold to “Tradition alone” it held to both Tradition and Scripture and what was referred to as orthodox Apostolic Tradition.

But their view of tradition was markedly different from the modern RC view. Tradition had everything to do with the confirmation of Scripture as well as a consensus within the broader Church. They did not make stuff up out of whole clothe; such as modern dogma like the immaculate conception or bodily assumption or Mary. You do not find hints of notions such as the co-mediatrix of Mary.

That was not the approach to doctrinal formulations of the early church fathers.

topcat54:

There view of Tradition was exactly what the Catholic Church hold to, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Fathers did in their writings allude to Mary being preserved from Original Sin by God’s Providence and Grace, at least in the Western Church which point to the Immaculate Conception. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, you will also see Mary as the Most Holy Theotokos and rather than define it as a Dogma, which is what the Catholic Church did, they see it as a dogma expressed from the Eastern Liturgical Tradition, which while a difference Tradition [Latin vs. Greek], results in the same thing as even in the Catholic Church, there is a constant Liturgical principle “Lex Orandi Lex Credendi”, or the rule of prayer leads to the rule of Faith

Here is an excerpt on the Orthodox Tradition from Prof. Kimball [Who is an Orthodox Theologian] that was delivered at the University of Dayton, a Catholic University.

“Within the Divine Liturgy, Mary is always granted esteem because she is the Theotokos. Immediately following the Anaphora (lifting up of gifts) and the Consecration in the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the famous hymn Axion Estin is always sung, recognizing Mary’s role in the miracle of the Eucharist:

It is truly right to bless you, Theotokos,
ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God.
More honorable than the Cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the
Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth
to God the Word. We magnify you, the true
Theotokos.[3]

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/maryorthodox.htm

If you read on, you will see that the Eastern Orthodox also refer to the Holy Mother of God as the “Panagia which closely relates to the Catholic concept of Immaculate Conception. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church’s tendency to define things means you sometimes “define things” that are in essence, a Holy Mystery and sometimes are “theological terms” can’t adequatly express the “Holy Mystery” that we are trying to define.

As for the Assumption of Mary, that comes from the Greek-Byzantine Tradition as well and finds its source in the Liturgy of the Greek and other Eastern Churches. It made it way to Rome in the 4th/5th century and of course was late defined as Dogma. It is not a defined dogma in the Orthodox Church but one that is celebrated in the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Church.

Your view of Tradition is inconsistent with the Fathers, both West and East. I suggest you look to the Greek Church Fathers as well as with the split between Rome and Constantinopile in 1054 AD, you can’t look at the Eastern Orthodox Church today and say that its Dogmas and Doctrines that it believes, either via Council of the Early Church or what is confirmed in its Divine Liturgy, are the product of Rome’s views being incorporated by the East as those 2 Great and Ancient Traditions had been apart 500 years before Henry VII decided to make himself head of the Church of England and Luther and Calvin proposed novel ideas not found in either the Latin Fathers of the Early Church and “the Greek Fathers” and the Eastern Orthodox Church as well.

topcat54:

Fair question. While I have read, and continue to read as much of the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition as I can, I am by no means as knowledgable on it as I am on the Catholic or more specifically, the Latin-Western Tradition as expressed by the Latin Fathers, St. Hillary of Potiers, St.Ambrose of Milian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, etc.

However, given that there are some 30 million Eastern Catholic who share in the same Liturgical Tradition as the Eastern Orthodox, the only difference is that those Eastern Rite Catholics are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and recognize the Primacy of the Church of Rome, I have done some study on the Eastern Liturgies and in fact have attended a Maronite-Catholic Liturgy, which is part of the Liturgical tradition from the Church of Antioch.

The Liturgy of ST. John Chrysostom dates to the 5th century and is the primary Liturgy of the Greek and Byzatine Tradition which you will find in the Greek-Orthodox as well as the Byzatine Catholic Churches, such as the Ukranian Catholic Church [Eastern CHurch in communion with Rome].

The other main Liturgies are the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, dating to the 4th century, and the Liturgy of St. James which dates to 1st century. These 2 Liturgies are celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church on special Feast days, from what I gather. Here is a link to the Orthodox Church in the States that has both the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great and John Chrystotem.

http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts

I found this link from orthodoxwiki regarding the Liturgy of St. Basil The Great

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Liturgy_of_St._Basil

A short link on the Liturgy of St. John Chrystotem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Liturgy_of_St._John_Chrysostom

Now just a question, why would you assume that the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is not connected to the Liturgies of the Great Fathers of the Eastern Church, i.e. Basil the Great, John Chrystotem? Where did it come from? and again, lets leave your issues with the Catholic Church and Rome aside, we are talking about a Liturgy that has its own roots in the ancient Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire and those Liturgies are in essence, the same as the classic Roman Rite and its various sub-forms such as the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bregan, Sarum, etc, etc.

Now just a question, why would you assume that the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is not connected to the Liturgies of the Great Fathers of the Eastern Church, …

I’m not assuming anything. My question had to do with the date of that portion to which you pointed, the Axion Estin, in support of the notion of worship/adoration of Mary among the early church fathers. From what I can tell, it is of much later origin that the Divine Liturgy itself. If true that does not seem to support your contention, as I understand things.

Can you confirm that the Axion Estin is, in fact, from the 5th century Liturgy, or that it was attached 5 centuries later?

topcat54:

First off, he use of the term “worship/adoration” of Mary is 100% incorrect. It is honor or veneration. Neither the Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox Church “worships/adores” Mary.

Now the hym “Axion Estin” is from the 10th century, that is true, but it does not reflect the development of any Doctrine. The Liturgical Hym is using terminology that does go back to the Patristic Period. The term most Holy Theotokos is surely from the Patristic Period and pre-dates the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and “Theotokions”, i.e. Hyms to the Mother of God seemed to have been incorporated into the Liturgy after the Council of Ephesus, at least in the Eastern Church.

So while the particular Hym the “Axion Estin” is not from the 5th century, Hyms to the Theotokos started in the 5th century. The titles given to Mary as All-Holy [Panagia] in the Eastern Church are rooted in both the Patristic traditions of the West and East as well as ever-virgin.

The 2nd Council of Constantinopile, in 553 refers to Christ being born of the holy and glorious Mother of God, ever-virgin, etc.

So the axion estin hym while being composed in the 10th century, expresses beliefs that were well in place going back to the early Church.

topcat54:

Again Mary is “venerated and honored” in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. I hope you now realize the difference and realize that Worship and Adoration are for God alone.

Again, all the terms in the Marian Hyms are found in the early Church. If you have problems with those hyms, that is typical of the Reformation crowd of the 16th century so I am not trying to get you to agree to them.

However, your questions are legitimate and are ones that I think deserve a serious answer. One of the earliest hyms to The Mother of God is the “Akathist to the Theotokos” which is found here in a version used for Eastern Catholic Liturgy

http://www.cin.org/akathis.html

Here is a version used for an Eastern Orthodox Liturgy and one that has some details on its purpose in Liturgy and its History.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/m_akathist_e.htm

Since the Council of Ephesus occured in 431AD, the Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos seems to have been written in the 6th century and is associated with the Church of Constantinopile, we are talking about anywhere from 70 years to maybe 130 years given the fact that the composer of the Hym, St. Romanos passed to the Lord in the year 553 AD according to the cite that I linked prepared by Bishop Alexander of the Russian Orthodox Church.

topcat54:

Some review of some of my Catholic Liturgical books and my LIturgy of the Hours book reminded me of what is the earliest Marian Hym used in the Liturgy as it is part of the Antiphons. It is called the “Sub tuum praesidium” Here is a group of traditional nuns that pray the Classic Roman Liturgy of the Hours, which incorporated the “Sub tuum praesidium”

http://www.passionistnuns.org/blog/?cat=22

Now as opposed to being part of the Byzatine Liturgical Tradition, this Hym to the Theotokos originated from the Church of Alexandria and thus is still a primary Liturgical Prayer in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is the major Church that Egypt’s Christians belong to.

The “Sub Tum praesidium” has also been translated into the Byzatine Liturgy as well as the Roman Rite and the Ambrosian Rite, which is a sub-Roman rite.

Hope this helps.

Oh, okay, it was post 376 here where you notated the interesting video where the guy ties lots of pieces together, glad I found this for my own ref for when I have time/nrg to process it better

REF what Quix said and the actual link

= = =
... don’t have the luxury of dismissing it out of hand.

He cites high level sources with photocopies.

http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/123/211-232K/

... copy the link and save it in a safe place and get to it when you at all can. Sometimes such things disappear.

= = =
End of Quix quote.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.