PRAYER. It is truly proper to glorify You, O Theotokos, the Ever blessed, immaculate and the Mother of God. More honourable than the Cherubim and beyond compare, more glorious than the Seraphim, who a Virgin gave birth to God the Word, You, truly the Theotokos, we magnify.

Father, bless! Dear Father, thank you for your wonderful teachings. I wish there were more! Your videos have helped me tremendously on my journey into the Orthodox Church. That book looks excellent BTW - it's now sitting in my Amazon Wishlist.

Wow ! Thank you for this enlightenment!!!!!!!! God bless you!!!!!

Hey this was a very interesting video. Do you know of any good/credible sources on the early church fathers and what they taught? Basically do you know any sources on church tradition and how they came about? Thanks

First Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Excellent, thank you.

Hi Fr. Athanasios. This is Fr. Vladimir. Remember me? I appreciate this video. You highlighted some key points that I will be using in my catechumen class. God bless your service in Christ.

Can you recommend a good book that can help me understand more about theotokos and the saints? Perhaps the one being studied at this meeting?

Hello. This is a wonderful, insightful video. I am learning the doctrine to become a member of the Orthodox church and I have a quick question: I struggle with the fact that Joseph had other children from a previous wife. Where can I find this in the Bible? I come from a Protestant background and I want to believe in the Thethokos, but something is keeping me back. Please help!! Thanks!

Ephesians 1:16-19 😊

18:36 We are all saints, yes ☦️

What book are your referencing in the video?

What are you sources for this?

I think that says a great deal.

Father, you pointed out Mary's particular ascension because of her relationship with Christ, I was wondering if all other Saints undergo the same, or are they simply dead, waiting for the resurrection?

I don't have a problem with most Mariological beliefs in the orthodox church. The only problem I have and probably the biggest problem I see in the theology of catholics and orthodox is DEVOTION and ADORATION to her. I capitalize these words to emphasize them. Her or Any saint. But I do love her and her and she does deserve honor. But The only one I adore Is christ. and he alone is to whom my devotion belongs. what are your thoughts on the topic?

Hi Father Athanasios, How do we explain or defend Orthodoxy to Born again Christians that label us as pagan, tradition faith. I have not watched the entire video yet im hoping it sheds lighton how to explain why we venerate tin Panayia.

Here is what Jerome actually THINKS about Helvidius, "I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating."

There are many ancient Churches that are not in Communion with the original Orthodox Chrsitian Church. Sometime, these Churchs had political difference, and other times these Churches had theological differences. Since I do serve on any Orthodox-Syriac Church Dialogue Committee, I cannot speak to where the two Churches currently view their relationship. I DO know, however, that many ancient schims are in the process of being resolved as we discover our ancient difference were not about theology.

I see your citation now.

I hope you will reply to this, but would you consider the capital "S" Saints being capital "S" Saints to be dogmatic?

Consider this from Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyrpus (late 4th century) as evidence of the "generally accepted teaching by then)

Have all righteous Orthodox prayed to saints or Mary? Can Protestants have the holy spirit?

Amen.

He is, but I would like to see a direct citation before giving it weight. What you cited so far has Chrysostom in two categories. I'm not sure what that says.

If Mary was merely the mother of the human jesus, what do you suggest became of the human jesus when the Divine Jesus entered his physical body?

Dear father, I've been a Roman Catholic since 1991. Roman Catholic never believe that Virgin Mary never die. She died but resurrected with her body. We are the same belief as Orthodox in this point. Anyway, I'm now serious considering to convert to Greek Orthodox because I consider Orthodox belief is much purer and the Orthodox church is much "cleaner" than Roman Catholic.

Having said that, I will also remind you, as I said in the video, the ONLY dogmatic statement about the Mother of the God is in relation to the virgin birth and that she bore God. Being fair, you being a Calvanist and me being Orthodox, I wouldn't expect us to agree on this question, but I can't allow history to be misrepresented.

Are there any theological differences between the Romanian Orthodox Church and Greek Orthodox Church

I understand what is said about the prayer to saints, but what is it that lead the orthodox church to believe that they are heard by saints? I agree that they are alive in Christ, but it seems to me that they are moved on from this mortal plane and I don't see how they would have anything to do with us or want to. I do not mean to argue; I simply wish to understand your point of view.

A good, albeit not scholarly, general resource for what the Orthodox Church teaches surrounding the Mother of God, read "The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos" published by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, CO. It is a good synopsis and filled with references.

Correct. I refer mainly to Protestants which includes even many Episcopalians. To suggest that she did NOT die would be to deny her humanity.

To begin with, when it fell to the Virgin’s lot to be entrusted to Joseph she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony. It was for the preservation of her virginity in witness to the things to come… (Epiphanius reference Protoevanelgium of James)

thank God for Christ and the Theotokos who bore HIm, and to the Orthodox priest- you spoke well on this, question though? i know these two text were written in the second century, but i would like to know why the Church did not add them into the canon of scripture- in hindsight it would of cut out alot of confusion among Protestantism - the 2 text i refer to is the "Protovangelium of James," and the "Gospel of the Nativity of Mary" plus those are apocryphal but are the only two text that seem to speak of the Theotokos before the Annunciation (in Luke)- her early life so the question is: why didn't the Church accept the Protovangelium of James and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary in the canon of scripture? to think of it it would of covered what your saying here from holy tradition and would of stop alot of confusion amongst protestants latter on even though that would be 1300 years latter roughly. and it does cover Marys early life even according to the tradition of the Church

Do the Orthodox Christians ask Mary to intercede for them in Heaven?

Mt 12:46 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." Mk 3:31 And His mother and His brothers *arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him, and called Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You." 33 And answering them, He *said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?" 34 And looking about on those who were sitting around Him, He *said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Lk 8:19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You." 21 But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

Questions to consider. Can you be fully human without having sin? I question this because we have to think about our first parents (Adam and Eve) before their fall. Were they human before they fell into sin? The dogma of the assumption of Mary only declares that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. The dogma didn’t declare whether she died first before she was assumed/translated or if she never died. The Catholic Church leaves it open to all its believers. We do have Catholics who believe that she never died, but we also have Catholics that believed that she died. It’s up to the individual catholic, but I can understand your perspective. I truly believe that she did fell asleep. If Christ our savior died, then Mary could have died too. Regarding the immaculate conception of the Theotokos. I think our understanding of original sin/ancestry sin are different from each other. In the eyes of the Orthodox Church Mary must have our broken nature to be fully human, Christ had to have our broken nature to free us from our broken nature. “What he didn’t assume he never freed us from”. So having a broken nature in the eyes of the orthodox is to become fully man. In the eyes of the Catholic Church. Adam and Eve were fully humans before our fall. But through sin they became “less” human. Humans were created out of sin. It was never intended for humans to have a inclination towards sin. So original sin is a human deficiency in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This is the reason why Jesus can deliver us from every human suffering since he was fully human and we were “less human” in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Even though he never “assumed” our human deficiency doesn’t make him less human. It makes him more human for the Catholic Church.

I suppose the very word debate is where things go off. To say there were different thoughts of who the brothers were (other than Mary's) is not the same as saying they actually debated it.

The issue about whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died before her assumption is rather an open question in Catholicism. Do the Eastern Orthodox deny her Assumption? I know it is not a doctrine of Orthodoxy but is there a theological consensus?

You know Jerome agrees with what I taught in the video right? You're just using to show the debate right?

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "And His sisters, are they not all with us?

Again, this isn't the ancient citation. Who is Jerome in 1893 and who was Helvidius he was writing against?

Thank you Father Athanasius. My interest was not to debate but to clarify catholic positions, which you apparently miss represented. Catholics have always believed in the ever virginity of the Theotokos, and argued against the often missused Matt 1:25. Regarding her death, the language of Munificentissimus Deu implies it. What we believe is that her dead body did not undergo corruption.

Psalm 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in humans.

Jesus said for a spirit has no flesh or bones, you see that I have. His mother has appeared and is still appearing.

I'm very confused..a three year old female child somehow Got into the Holy oh Holys? or she we in there when she was older? a girl, not a levite? more specifically not a levitical priest? much more specifically not a male levitical high priest on the day of atonement but a girl went into the holy of holy's? I see a bit of a problem with that....

Mary

By the way, what you cite ISN'T Jerome directly, which you should cite for future reference. Most scholarship requires primary source citation as dictionaries and other articles cary a bias.

Her BODILY Assumption is affirmed in Orthodoxy AFTER her death. Good point about doctine as doctrine is reserved for matter pertaining to the nature of Christ. Whether her body was assumed after her death by Christ (as the Holy Icons of the Feast of her Dormition teach as well) does not alter who Jesus Christ is, and therefore not subject to doctrine.

Jeremiah 17 : 5 - 8

We agree that her body was ASSUMED into Paradise. Where we disagree is whether she died first or not. I would suggest you double check with a local Roman Catholic theologian as to the official doctrine of her death. It has evolved over the centuries. In terms of her ever-virginity, it is not doctrine in the Orthodox Church, but a pious belief, since whether she had additional children or not would not disrupt the nature of Christ.

I do not understand the frase virgin birth. I heard that a woman can be pregnant and still be a virgin, the sperm goes to a tiny hole in the maidenhead but it breaks sooner or later during pregnansy or at birth. So how did virgin mary gave birth to christ? I hope I am not affending you but I am very much interrested in orthodoxy therefor I ask this quiestion.

3-4: indicating how Mary went thru her purification process after HER WOMB WAS OPENED by a male child. Mary was unclean according to the Mosaic Laws due to the issue of blood after the normal birthing of a child. Lev 12:8: “And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

So this is the dictionary entry citing Jerome of Rome. It also states, "The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages." Obviously Helvidius was not a major source of Church doctrine if nothing else exists. You might be reaching to place your theology on him.

Indeed the Church has always referred to the Mother of God as ever-virgin. If the early Church considered His 'brothers" as her children, they would not have used the term.

This is a problem of our modern day. A handful (literally) being used as if equal value is to be placed on their point of view. You might wish to consider this "debate". I choose a few wrong opinions. The term FATHERS is quite specific and cannot be used to include those outside the Church consciousness throughout the centuries, just as you cannot consider Arius a "Church Father" as he was a heretic.

While Orthodox do teach the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, doctrine is reserved for issues pertaining to Christ. I do find one thing interesting about the modern debate about the Mother of God. MOST hold Joseph to be a young man, which itself is not an ancient understanding. In the context of Joseph being of old age and righteous in the eyes of God, even the thought of his having relations with the woman who bore God seems outrageous and unbelievable.

God explicitly commands against worshipping Him through created things. We are not to bow down and worship the form of anything in heaven above or earth below (Exodus 20:4-5). Romans 1:25 could not be more clear: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.” Yes, God has created wonderful and amazing things. Yes, Mary was a godly woman who is worthy of our respect. No, we absolutely are not to worship God “vicariously” by praising things (or people) He has created. Doing so is blatant idolatry.

That is what you would need to do to claim them. I already know where your point of view comes from and you already know mine. You suggested the Fathers weren't as united on Mary and the brothers as I suggest. Where is the evidence?

Since you do not agree the Divine Son became incarnate, a continuous and universal teaching of Christianity, I will spare you the dialogue of further replies.

The ancient Church knew Joseph as an old man. The ancient Church knew the Mother of God as ever-virgin. If Mary was ever-virgin and Joseph was a widower, either the "brothers" were close cousins, associates or Joseph's children.

I did not say the divine Son did not become incarnate only that the incarnation is a mystery that MUST NOT be explained in human terms ending up in blasphemy. LOVE TO YOU IN GOD'S NAME. IN THE WAY OF YHWH.

A LOT of problems with his arguments - 1. Christ was the firstborn of Joseph. The Bible itself says so. Then how come Joseph had other children BEFORE him from his earlier marriage? He must have had them with Mary only. 2. By virgin, why does it have to be always in a sexual context? Virgin also means pure, unblemished or un-corrupted. That's why a lot of travellers to uncharted lands have used the word "Virgin" to denote the in-corrupted state of the newly discovered land. The same logic can be applied to Mary too≥ She was virgin, incorruptible in the soul.

The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that our Blessed Mother didn´t die, it actually leaves the issue open. The dogma of the Assumption states literally: " that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The fact that she was conceived without sin (immaculate conception) does not imply that she didn´t die: Jesus was without sin and yet he most certainly died.

Why do the Catholic's and Orthodox fight so hard to perpetuate the perpetual virginity/immaculate conception of Mary? That, along with prayers to the saints and icons. I just don't see how these beliefs and practices are worth the criticisms and baggage that they bring. There's enough to defend (by way of biblical beliefs) without these things. Why clutter the landscape with items that aren't integral to the day to day life of a believer? By way of sanctification...removing these things doesn't make a lick of difference. And the fact that these beliefs and practices are nowhere to be found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (those who lived closest to the time of the apostles) is very telling. These things were developed and added over time. Considering similar practices can be found in the surrounding non-Christian culture that the early church was incubated in... It seems like they adapted tenants from paganism so as to accomadate and attract the unbelieving world. This is the equivalent of accepting gay marriage so as to attract the world. This may not be the case, but as an avid reader of history, this DOES seem to be the case. Regardless, this is how it looks to protestants. I believe these are valid concerns. Becoming the world...to attract the world is an oxymoron that's counter productive. In modern times protestantism has perfected it, but in many cases, the Catholics and Orthodox invented it. If these things could be found in the works of Clement, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaus and Polycarp...I'd be convinced that they're extra-biblical (but yet biblical) traditions that the apostles taught (but for some reason didn't end up in scripture). If the orthodox dropped these beliefs and practices, I'd immediately convert. I just don't see how these things are integral to the core and foundation of the Christian experience. Plus, they just simply cannot be backed up by scripture (which immediately makes the Catholic and orthodox church a target to be INSTANTLY dismissed by protestants). It's not as if these things are likened unto issues such as the divinity of Christ, the bodily resurrection and baptism (all things worth contending for). To fight for them as if they are brick and mortar tenants that serve as the cornerstone to Christianity just BEGS for suspicion from protestants. This is largely due to the fact that similar beliefs and practices can be traced back to ancient paganism. Both the Catholic and orthodox church place themselves in a position to be criticized. I'm all for contending for the tenants of scripture...but you'd never come to these conclusions without the necessity of church tradition...a tradition that first appeared HUNDREDS of years after the lives of the apostles and the church fathers who knew them personally. This is a major red flag to me. It gives me a vast amount of pause. I understand (and agree) with the idea of purporting church traditions (that don't directly appear in scripture) but the preoccupation with Mary, iconography, and prayers to the saints seems SO out of place with ANYTHING biblical. Thus the reason it's a red flag to protestants. Accepting the Catholic and orthodox traditions require more faith than believing on the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation. This is such a shame. I absolutely adore MANY (if not most) of what the Orthodox church teaches AND practices. The Philokalia is worth its weight in gold...as is the writings of St. Theophan and many others. I've NEVER encountered such profound spiritual truths in all of my life. It's such a shame that so many are deprived of these riches because of the obstinance and insistence of persisting in the aforementioned items. It seems like such a waste. How tragic. I almost covet to convert to Orthodoxy...but things such as this prevent me. This makes me profoundly sad.

I would caution you on placing so much on a single person, unless of course you don't accept that the ancient Church dealt with heresies. There have ALWAYS been a person or a handful who disagreed with the consensus, but that is a great distance apart from evidence of wide-spread debate. Let's face, some even suggested Jesus wasn't divine and the Father wrote against them as well. Would you suggest the divinity of Jesus was "debated" as if there wasn't wide-spread acceptance?

For how could such an old man, who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panter; both of these brothers were the sons of the man named Panter. Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear. (Mark 6.3, John 19.25)

I am Catholic and as far as I understand , Mary died and was assumed into heaven , meaning that she was taken up to heaven by Jesus. She was not resurrected or ascended into heaven by herself.

What Men-pleasers Do
(Galatians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:4) 
They seek the approval of men above the approval of God. The rule is, human beings have a propensity that welcomes the praise of their fellows. While there may be exceptions, the rule is we enjoy being complimented or honored. The danger is, we can easily become intoxicated and consumed by this need, then crave the praise of men. The next step in this moral digression is, to seek human approval as a personal priority. Those exposed by the Lord in Matthew 6 were guilty of this. They did their "charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them." The same motive prompted their ostentatious praying and fasting. Among some of the leading Pharisees, there was at least intellectual confidence in the claims of Christ, but "they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God," (John. 12:41). Again the problem was described by our Lord when He said: "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their father to the false prophets," (Lk. 6:26). Men-pleasers seek the approval of men above the approval of God. Let us aim higher. The personal priority of every child of God must be, to seek the approval of God, regardless of how men respond to our preaching and practice. Our Father is a "rewarder of those who diligently seek Him," (Heb. 11:6). 

They adapt their message to their audiences. Men-pleasers deliver to their audiences that which will elicit their approval. They have made this their priority. In every time of controversy since Pentecost, there have been men catering to the crowd; even changing and adapting their message from audience to audience, not out of conviction, but to please and to become known as crowd pleasers. Paul and Timothy are examples of men who were not willing to do this. Paul told the Corinthians: "For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church," (1 Cor. 4:17). When people (baptized or not) "will not endure sound doctrine," they should hear it anyway, regardless of response or consequence. When sound doctrine is not the desire of heart, audiences will "heap up for themselves teachers," and men-pleasers will heap up for themselves a following. (See 2 Tim. 4:1-5) This craving to please your audience can quickly lead to language so concerned with diplomacy, it conveys nothing substantial or scriptural, only sentiment. {I have long believed that there are men teaching error of divorce and remarriage because they want to please the world. They found a way to teach it, twist it and spin it, to make it as easy as the world expects.} 

They carefully avoid negative pronouncements. Though God requires preachers to "convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching," this duty is neglected by men-pleasers in situations where such wouldn't be welcomed. It is one thing to "speak the truth in love," (Eph. 4:15), but to speak without truth is not loving, even if praised and applauded by men. There is the exhibition of this, when preachers step so delicately, they trample over truth to keep people happy. An honest reading of 1, 2 Timothy and Titus can bring us to a better understanding of real preaching, and supply both motive and method to avoid the immature, frenzied work to gain the good esteem of men, leaving truth unspoken and sinners lost. Preachers who are "running for office," seeking trophies from men, building an image, leading a movement, proving their soundness by campaign, or otherwise ill-motivated will wind up withholding needed truth or twisting scripture. The response by faithful brethren should be to use every legitimate means to stop the mouths of vain talkers (Titus 1:9-13, Jude 3).

They will use association to generate favor (politics). When preaching and practice is aimed to please a group, gain the favor of well-known brother or gain access to a circle or cliché, the point has been missed altogether. When a "brotherhood writer" pens an article to lobby for entrance or acceptance of men, he should not be published if the motive is known. Men-pleasers eventually fall into the sin of undisciplined fellowship, endorsement of anyone baptized and this means - giving no heed to God's instructions as to one's association (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11, etc.). Do we not know that "friendship with the world is enmity with God?" (Jas. 4:4). And what a contrast, that some preachers seek reputation when Jesus "made Himself of no reputation," (Phil. 2:7)! {The inordinate desire to advance above others was part of the way of life Paul renounced in his obedience to the gospel, see Gal. 1:13-16.} 

Every preacher needs to ask himself the question stated in Galatians 1:10. "Do I seek to please men?" Paul responded: "For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ." Get the point? The men-pleaser in Gal. 1:10 is not a servant of Christ. Shalom to all that read.

So you don't really consider this as evidence that this was a "debated" issue do you? I would expect to see volumes to support such a claim. There WERE issues debated in the early Church and we can read TONS about what "both sides" had to say. I just don't see it on this issue. There is much more "modern" on the topic than ancient. I would agree with you that among Christians in general TODAY this is debated.

Jesus the God created Mary.. And everything on earth and universe ..

1-4: Tradition re Mary is based on the apocryphal Gospel of James written around 150 AD. Earliest reference in 3rd century by Origen of Alexandria, who says the text, like that of a "Gospel of Peter" was of dubious, recent appearance. This is a case wherein TRADITION can make the Words of God of NONE EFFECT. The “ever-virgin” & “sinless” status given to Mary clearly contradicts Luke’s account. Lk 2:21-24 (KJV): “… And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were

Couldn't you say that about Elijah and Enoch, since they didn't die, that puts to question their humanity as well. I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church strictly says that Mary did or did not die before her assumption. Though it is a popular teaching that she was assumed into heaven like Elijah and Enoch and didn't taste death, as I understand it, it's not a mandatory thing to believe in the Catholic Church. But Catholics like myself do believe she was assumed bodily into heaven.

You need to be more specific with your sources.

3of3: The integration of the mortal with the divine Christ may be explained in part by the science of QM (spooky entanglement theory) in terms of what we see as solids (all matter held together by an unknown force) are actually made of LIGHT at matter’s minutest level. If God is light & holds all things together (1 Jn 1:5-6; 8:12; 9:5; Col 1:15-17) then the incarnation of Christ is nowhere near what you envision; there is no “entering” but rather God manipulating light at the core of matter.

Maybe Joseph took another wife after Mary, but it seems less likely that he would before. I think Matthew giving the genealogy of Joseph rather than Mary was significant because it establishes Jesus as the first born and rightful aire to the throne of David. The throne did not always pass to the first born, such as David’s throne going to Solomon rather than Adoniyah. But I suspect the reason that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy was to establish His rightful claim as King of Judah, both as man and as God. I wouldn’t bet my life on it mind you, and I have no theological objection to Mary remaining a Virgin after giving birth, but I also see relevance to why it could be of significant that Jesus was the first born from Joseph.

feilung888 ... There are two points here. First, Enoch and Elias WILL return to die when the announce the return of Christ. This is NOT the case with the Virgin Mary. Second, the doctrine of her bodily assumption FOLLOWED the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. In other words, Roman Catholics USED to believe she died. There are even Churches built in honor of her death. As I understand RC teaching, since she was conceived immaculate she COULDN'T die.

truly father, the Catholic Church has not defined it contrary with what you state. Catholics are free to believe either option, and yes although only some modern scholars maintain that she did not undergo death, traditionally, the more universal voice is that she did. I in fact agree with you but not as a fact for doctrinal necessity. You must be aware of the voice of St. Epiphanius of Constantia. God Bless.

To restrict "dogma" to "scripture", or even to the "ecumenical councils", is too minimalist, in my view. The writings of the Holy Fathers interpret both of these sources, and enrich the orthodox doctrine about the Theotokos, e.g., that she was a virgin not only before, but also during and after the birth of Christ.

Father athanasius, please clarify that when you say western Church, you refer to protestants. Catholics do believe the Theotokos is ever virgin. Also, The Catholic Church has never stated as matter of dogma that she did die or did not and it has allow Catholics to believe freely either position.

The internet shall know the name of the bringer of apparently warm tasty things. And his name is: Chris!

The Virgin Mary was not sinless. She was purified by the Holy Spirit at the conception of Christ and remained a virgin. This is not the same as saying she is sinless.

While historically there have been some Protestant theologians-basically at the start of the "Reformation" and in our own era who affirm a more positive role for the Blessed Virgin Mary in their theology, Protestantism in its nature has a problem with any veneration of the saints or the BVM since they do not believe in sanctifying grace or the necessity for good works post justification. Everybody is just a depraved sinner saved by grace through faith--or not.

I'm sorry, but this does not cite ancient documents. Where are the ancient citations? There has been much written since the Protestant Reformation that has changed the interpretations of the ancient Fathers. The sentence you cite really isn't a source. I have already acknowledged that many in the Protestant world consider the brother and sisters to be Jesus' blood relatives. You haven't offered anything to counter what I have already said.

Didn't Jesus have siblings?????

If there was immaculate conception that means by the grace of God she was preserved from all sin, had no inner struggling for sinful behavior. But she's a human just like adam and eve

Theotokos is misleading. It is Christotokos which properly used means Mother of Christ who is also God. If bearer of God then it implies the Trinity. I think the Monophytes we're driving Theotokos.

Father, I'm in RCIA in a Roman Catholic church and we just went over this. I have to tell you that the Western Church, as it were, teaches the exact same thing about Mary being ever virgin as you. Why would you think they teach something different? Did you mean maybe protestants? Also, thank you for the video. Mary is on my mind because today is the Feast Day of the Visitation when Mary visited Elizabeth!

I dont know why people have problems with the incarnation mystery and the inmaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. We are all incarnations, and just as a woman is our door to this world, another woman is the door out of it.But surely, another kind of woman, lest you want to be born again here.

Why not call her the bearer of Christ, God the Son?

The Bible is absolutely clear that we are to worship God alone. The only instances of anyone other than God receiving worship in the Bible are false gods, which are Satan and his demons. All followers of the Lord God refuse worship. Peter and the apostles refused to be worshipped (Acts 10:25-26; 14:13-14). The holy angels refuse to be worshipped (Revelation 19:10; 22:9). The response is always the same, “Worship God!”

2-4: accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. “ The account of the ritual for purification of a woman after giving birth to a male child is found in Lev 12:1-8,

I don't know why the church had to develop all the extra theological theses on Mary. Was't that glorious enough that God has chosen her as the mother of His Son? she did not have to be immaculate born herself, had not remain a virgin through her all life after giving birth t Jesus, had not to ascended body and soul to Heaven. God is Almighty and Powerful enough, to skip all the doctrines!

The Western Church has NEVER denied that the Most Holy Theotokos was ever virgin. Catholic believe that the Blessed Virgin went to sleep and then was assumed into heaven. We do not claim that she died. Please learn what the Catholic Church believes before you claim for us what we do not claim.

I don't think the assumption of Mary means she was never human. Jesus can assume Mary. He is God. If Enoch and Elisha can be assumed who were human .Why Not Mary who was human and the Mother of Jesus? I don't think Jesus would let his mother be corrupted. She was blessed among women. I know either way does it change who Jesus is but I am having a hard time with that logic.

This is incorrect. The RCC does NOT teach that Mary never died. We teach that she died and THEN was assumed into heaven body and soul. This is exactly the same teaching as the Orthodox Church.

Helvidius isn't a Father of the Church. You seem to be more concerned that there WAS debate about something that ultimately doesn't matter. As I state, the ONLY doctrine in this video is about the virgin-birth and that she is Mother of God. If you want to see debate, I can't stop you.

I enjoy watching these films about the Orthodox Church and their beliefs. I was okay with your explanation on Mary until you had a tradition that Mary actually entered the Holy of Holies and dialoged with angels. No one but the high priest was allowed in the H of H; how in the world would they have allowed a young jewish girl into the H of H? I find that very, very hard to believe, as the Temple was always occupied by attending priests, etc. Which puts into question the other traditions passed down by the Church over the centuries. People are fallible. People exaggerate. And yes, people are superstitious, especially coming out of a pagan world to become Christians. Isn't it possible that many of the traditions passed down are either inaccurate or downright untrue? Thanks..,

My bible says you can only get to the Father through Jesus, not Mary not the saints in heaven no other name! I have never read anything in the bible saying to ask anyone in heaven to pray for me.

Me thinks they dost "protest" too much....