The Oldest Hymn to Mary (early christian worship)

Patheos Standing on my head ^ | November 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[will of the people]

again-

most of the new testament is written to correct error in the early (first century church)

some of the people who introduced and practiced the error are ACTUALLY listed in the text of the new testament

so- the presence of error is not a surprise, especially 150 or so years later

[NYer]

Don’t know the root cause is, but the end result comes from copying and pasting. Jim and John are working on it.

Okay ... that makes sense. It has to do with coding. This is one of the rare instances where I had to copy and paste the article because I could not find the developer code on the site. Most frustrating.

[NYer]

Is it 250 or 300?

The fragment dates to 250 but, as Fr. Longenecker notes, "if this hymn to the Virgin dates from 250 AD we can deduce that it must be a written record of an earlier practice. Think about it, by the time something is written down for use in the liturgy it must already have been in use for some time. Furthermore, if this prayer is part of a document that is a copy of another document, then this also indicates that the actual practice is earlier than the manuscript itself."

[ealgeone]

The oral tradition tells us that without Mary’s intercession, and belief in the written and oral words that instruct on the Holy Eucharist, there is no salvation.

And this is why John wrote 20:30-31.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

The same author also wrote in 1 John 5:11-13

11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

The astute reader will note no intercession necessary from Mary or the need to believe in transubstantiation in either passage.

The written Word contains all we need to know on how to obtain salvation as John notes in his Gospel.

It is why Christianity rejects roman catholic tradition.

[Kolokotronis]

Beat me to it!

[ealgeone]

The fragment dates to 250 but, as Fr. Longenecker notes, "if this hymn to the Virgin dates from 250 AD we can deduce that it must be a written record of an earlier practice. Think about it, by the time something is written down for use in the liturgy it must already have been in use for some time. Furthermore, if this prayer is part of a document that is a copy of another document, then this also indicates that the actual practice is earlier than the manuscript itself."

Speculation on his part.

[Stentor]

There's something about the reaction to this article that reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall when Allen brings Marshall Mcluhan from behind a poster to back him up in an argument with a patron who was pontificating about McLuhan's work.

"Don't you wish life was like that"

[af_vet_1981]

Beautiful; just as Jews the world over share the comforting knowledge that Jews everywhere are lighting Shabbat candles and blessing God through prayers over the wine and bread, Catholics know and share the love for blessed Miriam/Mary, the mother of God with us, our King and Redeemer, Jesus.

[JAKraig]

dates from 250 AD we can deduce that it must be a written record of an earlier practice.

__________________________________________________________

Actually such deductions are not logical. Often it is the written record that starts the theology.. For instance the Hymn or Christmas Carol “Silent Night”. Much tradition that was not thought of before the hymn became popular is now set in most of Christianity.

Mary is the mother of Christ for sure. One of the last things The Savior did while on the cross where He gave His life for us was ask John to take care of His mother, in fact to make her his mother. He didn’t give instructions to worship her or treat her special, just to take care of her. In all the Scriptures we don’t ever hear of Christ honoring His mother more than that. You would think that by 325 AD when most of the Bible was consolidated into what we have today there would have been some mention of her. The early church had no such veneration, honor yes, worship no.

The other thing I want to mention is caution in calling “early church” something that happened in 250AD. Subtracting 250years from today would put us in 1765, before the creation of this country. That was a long time ago, what happened in 250 can barely be called early church because there was quite an organization by that time. There were not even great, great, great grand children around of those who had seen the Apostles. There was plenty of time for error to creep in.

Sill, I suspect that Mary must have been quite the young woman to have been singled out by God to be the mother of The Savior of the world.

[SpirituTuo]

Yes, Paul did address groups, like in 1Cor3. However, for some, it becomes a matter of pick and choose as to what doctrines/beliefs etc. were heretical/apostate, and when were they added. Again, what proof is offered as to whether, say, the teachings of St. Polycarp are not accurate?

Many of the complaints use circular logic, e.g.: a ancient teaching is held by the Catholic Church. During and after the Reformation, some Protestants claim these teachings are invalid, or unbiblical. When provided biblical citations and ancient writings, the claimants say it doesn’t match their interpretation of Scripture. Sort of like, “the teaching is wrong because we said so.”

Here is a better example. Where does it say women can be church leaders? In 1Tim2:11 (and also 1Cor14: 33), it expressly forbids it. However, many Protestant denominations allow it. The same goes for divorce, and divorce and remarriage. Very precise language from Our Lord, yet ignored by most non-Catholics.

In short, Christians believe different things, and claim any number of sources as authoritative proof for their beliefs. Often the same text is claimed by two sides to “prove” opposite view points. Catholics claim the authority granted Peter and his successors by Jesus, while others don’t.

Just because someone claims something is unbiblical, doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong, or not found in the Bible. Something to think about.

[Heart-Rest]

How can one "remember also" something that isn't true? It's blasphemy. I quit a rather wonderful city chorus because "Ave Marie" was slated for the next season's concert.

---

What exactly do you think that phrase "Ave Maria" means?

[Aliska]

I understood from the passage in scripture I quoted that in that culture, it It could be said or was taught and believed that women who were barren were not blessed, were stigmatized, were discriminated against, were unequal, were inferior. I think even God called it a reproach but not across the board. Sometimes it was to magnify himself as in Sarah and Elizabeth.

But nobody can get around what is written that Elizabeth addresses Mary as Mother of my Lord and I doubt anyone could argue context. It's pretty clear that that passage means what it says. Furthermore, who could not call her blessed? If they don't believe we should pray to her, then that is what they believe. The bible doesn't say explicitly one way or the other.

So then we get into sola scriptura and go round and round, endlessly, rancorously, and perhaps in the process condemn ourselves..

[MayflowerMadam]

I believe that the phrase, “Ave Maria”, exactly means “hail Mary”.

[metmom]

Good thing there’s no Protestant bashing going on on FR.

Right out of the gate.

Hymns to Mary, eh?

And Catholics claim they don’t worship her.

They just pray to her and sing hymns to her.

[metmom]

Without belief in the Eucharist, and Mary as Theotakis (Mother of God) and Mother of us all as Christ told us among His last words, there is no Christianity.

Without Christ, there is no Christianity.

Without believing you have to eat Jesus and that Mary is who Catholics claim Mary was, you still have Jesus dying and rising again to free us from our sins.

Christianity is about CHRIST, not Mary.

[metmom]

I really don't understand the hatred for the Theotokos expressed by professed Christians.

Could you show us exactly which posts display hatred of Mary? I'd be much obliged......

[metmom]

The Bible did not drop from the skies and self assemble themselves in the order in which they were found. It is the Catholic Church through its early Church fathers and theologians labored for some three centuries sorting out various fragments of writings, and gave us what we now call the Bible- the authoritative word of God. They did this by relying on the oral tradition.

Which then robs Scripture of it's authority as the word of God, by making it a work of man.

However, to the point...... Since you claim they are responsible for the Bible, then why did they include THIS.....

John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

And NOT call Mary, mother of GOD?

Did it slip their attention? Were they wrong the first time around and had to go back and correct it?

[metmom]

Who told you to divide the man from the deity? God didn't. Jesus said when you see Him, you see the Father. He is fully man AND fully divine... there is no division within Him.

Then Mary gave birth to divinity? The second person of the Godhead didn't exist until Mary birthed Him?

And then did GOD, the second person of the Godhead die on the cross as well?

[metmom]

The oral tradition tells us that without Mary's intercession, and belief in the written and oral words that instruct on the Holy Eucharist, there is no salvation.

That's why Christians reject *oral tradition*.

Without Jesus death, burial, and resurrection, there is no salvation.

Mary's supposed intercession is found nowhere in Scripture, Peter himself says that there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.

The only ones ever recorded in Scripture as making intercession for us is JESUS Himself, and the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Romans 8:26-27 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

Romans 8:33-34 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died-more than that, who was raised-who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Hebrews 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

[metmom]

The Oldest Hymn to Mary (early christian worship)

But, but, but, I thought Catholics didn't *worship* Mary.