Starting a new category on mariology. I hope people don’t take this the wrong away. I am not saying that honoring Mary is wrong. I am not even saying that Anchoretism’s special honoring of Mary is wrong, but I am pointing out how these unguarded statements will usually be interpreted by the less-educated.
In the very words of Cabasilas, ‘Mary’s blood became God’s blood,’ by the ineffable communicatio idiomatum and by her personal effort to raise fallen humanity to its original purity and perfection. Even more so, she recreated earth and heaven and united them—angels and men–by showing to them, more directly and more clearly than ever before, the ‘enhypostasized wisdom and love of God,’ the very God and their Savior Himself. She is, therefore, the very first and last created human being who represents microcosmic and macrocosmic perfection, having fulfilled God’s purpose of creation: the original and ideal humanity perfectly united with His love and will.
Basically, everything Protestants have said of Jesus, Cabasilas is saying of Mary. This is the most basic textbook definition of idolatry.
because our Lady is the first ‘divinized’ human creature, making all men able to rise to deification by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
I have no problem with theosis. I have no problem with saying the Holy spirit divinizes us into the image of Christ. That’s classic Reformed teaching on sanctification + glorification. I Have a problem with making Mary the active agent.
That is why Gregory Palamas calls the Mother of God ‘the boundary between the created and the uncreated,’
When I translated Genesis 1 from Hebrew, one of the more powerful repetitions was raquiyy, boundary or division. I don’t think God was thinking about Mary when he said that.
(Constantine N. Tsirpanlis, _The Mariology of Nicholas Cabasilas_)