Posted on 09/24/2008 4:03:51 PM PDT by NYer
LONDON (CNS) -- Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, England, has come under fire for his homily during a pilgrimage to the Marian sanctuaries in Lourdes, France.
Archbishop Williams, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, said in a homily during a Sept. 24 international Mass at Lourdes that when Mary appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous in 1858 "she came at first as an anonymous figure, a beautiful lady, a mysterious thing, not yet identified as the Lord's spotless mother.
"And Bernadette -- uneducated, uninstructed in doctrine -- leaped with joy, recognizing that here was life, here was healing," he said. "Only bit by bit does Bernadette find the words to let the world know; only bit by bit, we might say, does she discover how to listen to the Lady and echo what she has to tell us."
He also praised the lives of the saints, saying that their examples "matter so much."
The archbishop later was criticized by the England-based Protestant Truth Society, a group of Anglicans and nonconformists committed to upholding the ideals of the Protestant Reformation.
The Rev. Jeremy Brooks, the group's director of ministry, said: "All true Protestants will be appalled that the archbishop of Canterbury has visited Lourdes and preached there.
"Lourdes represents everything about Roman Catholicism that the Protestant Reformation rejected, including apparitions, Mariolatry and the veneration of saints," he said in a Sept. 24 statement. "The archbishop's simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon -- which included a reference to Mary as 'the mother of God' -- is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy."
He added, "At a time when our country is crying out for clear biblical leadership, it is nothing short of tragic that our supposedly Protestant archbishop is behaving as little more than a papal puppet."
Archbishop Williams was invited to the sanctuaries, where Mary appeared to St. Bernadette 150 years ago, by Bishop Jacques Perrier of Tarbes and Lourdes. His visit is the first in modern times by an archbishop of Canterbury. Archbishop Williams held talks there with German Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who celebrated the international Mass.
Archbishop Williams was joined by an unprecedented pilgrimage of 10 Church of England bishops, some 60 Anglican priests and about 400 Anglican lay worshippers.
Huh? Jesus is God. Mary gave birth to Him. That makes Mary the Mother of God. Do Protestants deny this?
The title “Mother of God” applied to Mary was well-established in the fifth century—Nestorius got into a lot of trouble for objecting to the expression. He was Patriarch of Constantinople but was forced out and spent the rest of his life at a remote monastery in Egypt.
I never heard of these guys, not being "England based." But they missed the point completely. The druid priest in charge of Canterbury was drawing an analogy between the visitation of Mary and the drool of high profile "Bishop" Vicky Gene.
"Only bit by bit does Bernadette find the words to let the world know; only bit by bit, we might say, does she discover how to listen to the Lady and echo what she has to tell us."
Bernadette is the C of E. "The Lady" is the homosexual from New Hampshire, explaining how "God is doing a new thing!"
I would think it all depends on the context and the manner in which one is speaking of Mary. Of course they acknowledge her as the mother of Jesus. I am reminded of John 1:1-5: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.”
Protestants believe on one mediator between God and Man (the Lord Jesus Christ) and in the supremacy of Jesus through whom all things were made, including his own mother.
“Huh? Jesus is God. Mary gave birth to Him. That makes Mary the Mother of God. Do Protestants deny this? “
I would say most do. Here’s why: Mary was the earthly mother of the man Jesus, who is Christ. So we don’t say Mary is the mother of God. Mary was an honorable, obedient woman, a servant of God. Not sinless, not the co-redemptrix, not the intercessor. Those titles belong to Jesus Christ alone.
protestants and protestantism has a continual annoying habit of denying or ignoring history unless it is post reformation.....apparently nothing matters or happened between the resurrection and the deformation.
“I would say most do. Here’s why: Mary was the earthly mother of the man Jesus, who is Christ. So we don’t say Mary is the mother of God.”
So you are, I take it, a Nestorian. And here I thought Nestorianism was stamped out 1500 years ago and now I find its alive and well here in Protestant America!
To say that Mary is not the Theotokos is a Christological heresy and has been since the 5th century, VLL.
"In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them .... Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God." Weimer, The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Consordia, St. Louis, Volume 7, 572
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor .... Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the twonatures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God." Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Volume 45, 348 and 335.
"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God." Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Volume 6, I, 639.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin .... Christ, we believe came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." Works of Luther, Volume 11, 319-320; Volume 6, 510.
"The have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company .... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." John Calvin, Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, 1562.
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Soon of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. " Zwingli Opera, Volume 1, 424.
Not sinless, not the co-redemptrix, not the intercessor. Those titles belong to Jesus Christ alone.
You need to expend a lot of effort and improve your deficient knowledge of Scripture, the history of Christianity and the topics at hand before making such incorrect definitve assertions.
The last major advocate of that position was a bishop named Nestorius, but that was back in the 5th century some time, and he was slapped down quite hard (and excommunicated, I believe).
There is no need to be afraid of the Blessed Virgin standing between you and Christ. She stands beside you and always, always points the way to her Son. Remember her words to the servants at the marriage feast at Cana: "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."
Jesus was both perfectly divine and perfectly human. He was the Incarnation of God. Mary couldn’t be mother of just part of Him. Your own mother was not just mother of the DNA you recieved from her, was she? Or was she entirely your mother?
Mary was not the mother of the Eternal Holy Trinity. the titles Mother of God, Theotokos or God-bearer does not refer to that. Anyone with basic knowledge of orthodox Christian theology would understand that.
But, since Jesus Christ was the earthly Incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Most Holy Trinity, and because Mary bore Christ in her womb, she is rightly refered to as “Mother of God” or “Theotokos”.
Mary, the Blessed Virgin ("all generation shall call me blessed"), is the Mother of the Man-God, the Person Jesus Christ. As Jesus is True God, and He is one Person, not two, Mary is the Mother of God. She is NOT the origin of God, but she is the mother of the person who is the Man-God, Jesus Christ, who became incarnate through the power of the Holy Ghost.
I saw Fr Groeschel talking about this on EWTN. He saud he had been speaking to a group of protestants at a retreat. He asked them if they believed Mary was the mother of God. All of the theologians nodded yes while the rank and file folks all shook their heads no.
And John goes on to say: and the World was made flesh and dwelt among us. Mary is never named in his Gospel, but it is instructive to me, at least that she played an instrumental role in event that began Our Lord’s public career. “Do what he tells us, she said to the porter, and then came a stupendous act of creation by the Creator at the request of his mother-SIX jugs of water set aside for cleanings were now overflowing with gallons of the finest wine. In deed a paradox, since the Word took his flesh from his own creator. He “owed” his humanity to a mere woman, and he still owes her, because he is still dressed in the garments she lent him.
The leader of our bible study class told a moving story tonight. He told of his devoutly Catholic father-in-law who had a special devotion to Mary. He would scold his Father-in-law for his devotion and feed him passages about Jesus being the sole mediator. Normally the father-in-law would shrug it off, but finally he said he would reply with a story. The older man grew up in foster homes, normally Catholic, since the mother from whom he had been taken for her reglect of him was nominally a Catholic. The foster parents were not generous, and one in particul made him sleep in a cold attic. He did go to a Catholic school, however, and so being cold he would go early to school and go to the chapel to wait, since it was heated. There was a beutufuc statute of Mary, which he loved, He said, since I had no real mother, I will imagine I have a mother like her. At the base of the statue was the inscription: Doe what he tells you to do.” So he tried to do this. His answer to the son-in-law was this: why should I not love someone who pointed me to Christ? To this the son-in-law had no answer.
So why should people be so against someone who has never done anything excrept point to Christ, and say: Do what he tells you to do?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
“You need to expend a lot of effort and improve your deficient knowledge of Scripture, the history of Christianity and the topics at hand before making such incorrect definitve assertions.”
Well, the poster asked if protestants actually deny that Mary is the mother of God. I was pointing out that yes, a lot do deny that and why.
I do appreciate you citing many theories and traditions of men on Mary that express Catholic belief. I remember these beliefs from when I was brought up as Catholic.
But I didn’t gain good knowledge of the scripture until I actually began to read the Bible and study it. This is when it became clear that Mary was not who I was lead to believe she was, and how deficient I really was in the Word. The irony is I didn’t do this until after I was asked to leave the Catholic church. If I had stayed in, I would probably have just taken other people’s word on what the Bible actually says instead of truly seeing it.
I recommend reading and studying His Word for yourself, directly from the source. You’d be surprised at how much The Word varies from what philosophers teach.
“There is no need to be afraid of the Blessed Virgin standing between you and Christ. She stands beside you and always, always points the way to her Son. Remember her words to the servants at the marriage feast at Cana: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”
Yes, I believe she always points to Jesus, as all true witnesses do. She was a direct witness of Christ and her testimony is strong, especially what you quote “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”
Jesus proclaimed that “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me.” (John 14:6)
I highly recommend reading and studying John for yourself.
“Mary was not the mother of the Eternal Holy Trinity.”
I agree.
“She is NOT the origin of God, but she is the mother of the person who is the Man-God, Jesus Christ, who became incarnate through the power of the Holy Ghost.”
I agree. But we have to be careful when we say she is the “Mother of God.” Many take this to mean she is the intercessor, the co-redemptrix or sinless and deserving of worship. These characteristics belong to Jesus Christ.
Luke 1
46 And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 “For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
49 “For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name.
50 “AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM.
51 “He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
52 “He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble.
53 “HE HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS; And sent away the rich empty-handed.
54 “He has given help to Israel His servant, In remembrance of His mercy,
55 As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and his descendants forever.”
“So you are, I take it, a Nestorian. And here I thought Nestorianism was stamped out 1500 years ago and now I find its alive and well here in Protestant America!”
I’m a saved by the blood born again Christian who looks to the The Word for Truth. If that’s Nestorian, than so be it. You and another poster brought that up. I will have to read up on it—I’m unaware of that philosophy. Thanks for mentioning Nestorianism to me.
Mary is the mother of God to the extent that Jesus came from her womb. It doesn’t mean she shares his divinity, which belongs to him alone.
Mary is “theotokos”, meaning “God-bearer”. Protestants accept this concept as it is firmly rooted in the teachings of the Apostles. Translating “theotokos” as “Mother of God” is common, but not entirely correct since God does not have a mother.
Mary is the mother of Christ in regards to His human nature. She is not the mother of Christ in regards to His divine nature. Christ, in His divine nature, is eternally begotten of the Father, and through Him all things were made. He existed before Mary.
The term “theotokos” was used by the Faithful to refute those heretics who claimed that Jesus was entirely human and later, at His baptism, recieved divine powers from God. “Theotokos” was not used, and should not be used, to exalt Mary.
“To say that Mary is not the Theotokos is a Christological heresy and has been since the 5th century, VLL.”
“Theotokos” and “Mother of God” are two different things. “Theotokos” means “God-bearer”.
I suggest you review the Definition of Chalcedon and the subsequent councils.
“I suggest you review the Definition of Chalcedon and the subsequent councils.”
Gee, thanks for the advice. Why didn’t I think to ask an Anglican what Greek means and go to one for an interpretation of what Greek bishops did at Chalcedon? Silly me!
Theotokos, bobjam, means absolutely Mother of God in that she gave birth to Jesus Christ, The Logos, here on Earth. That’s what “God Bearer” means as opposed to the Nestorian formuation of “Christotokos”. To claim that Panagia is the Christotokos is an anathemized heresy.
“Mary is the mother of God to the extent that Jesus came from her womb.”
Correct.
“It doesn’t mean she shares his divinity, which belongs to him alone.”
Also, and even more importantly in light of the efforts of some to virtually deify her, correct!
“Thanks for mentioning Nestorianism to me.”
You’re very welcome. A proper understanding of the Christology of The Church is fundamental to our lives as Christians. The reason the bishops of The Church anathemized Nestorius was that his teaching that Mary was the “Christotokos”, the Mother (birthgiver actually) of the Christ, as opposed to the “Theotokos”, the Mother of God diminished Jesus. In other words, Jesus here on earth was less than The Logos, God. That’s heresy as I am sure any Christian would agree today.
“For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.”
St. Athanasius
No, not of substance but of nature. He did not just 'cake" himself with Mary's flesh so we could see him. He became man (in flesh and nature) and remained God by nature.
Jesus is the same Person that eternal Logos is. One Person, two natures, united but not confused. If you don't understand it, that's okay, no one does. We don't have to understand it to know it as revealed truth.
From the Third Ecumnical Councuil record, +Ahanasius' anathema against Nestorius:
Repeating: "in the flesh she bore the Word of God."
To which Nestorius responded:
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.”
I have a feeling that the quote you have from +Athanasius is (mis)traslated Greek, confusing substance (which in English means matter) and hypostasis (that which has existence) or with ousia (nature, essence). Both Greek terms are translated as "substance."
I am quite certain that the root of this error is in translation because, think about it, God doesn't have 'matter' ('body') so the only rational thing would be to conclude that +Atanasius meant nature, i.e. Christ has two natures, divine and human.
Indeed. Don't you know +Augustine and Erasmus knew their Greek better than Greeks?/s
+Paul actually says man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). The whole verse is actually a perfect example of +Paul's treatment of Jesus as not being equal to the Father.
I am, as I have often noted in the past, merely the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants. Who am I to question the understandings of Greek by the Χενοι? :)
Bobjam, look up the Greek word "τοκος".
You think maybe I haven't done this? I hope you don't seriously believe that Catholics never read the Bible . . .
I was an Episcopalian before I converted, and I have my 12 year Sunday School pin, thank you very much. My Presbyterian high school required two Bible courses, Old and New Testament, for graduation. Moreover, I have read John's Gospel in the original, thanks to good solid Classics instruction in my undergraduate years.
What a sweet story. I have told unhappy children (including my own!) that if they feel their mother has let them down or hurt them or made a mistake, they can always turn for comfort to the Blessed Virgin, who is the Best Mother in the Whole Wide World.
Did the Second Person of the Trinity exist prior to the Annunciation? Yes.
Did God Incarnate exist prior to the Annunciation? No.
“You think maybe I haven’t done this? I hope you don’t seriously believe that Catholics never read the Bible .”
I was raised a Catholic and we NEVER studied the Bible directly. Any biblical knowledge was explained to us by the priest or nun in catechism. We were warned not to study the Bible on our own in case we misunderstood something. I don’t know if this is typical, but that’s how it was back then.
It wasn’t until I started to read the Bible directly and participating in Bible studies did I realize that a lot of the things taught in catechism or things we practiced were not biblical at all.
From the Definition of Chalcedon:
“..but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the Theotokos..”
As I said before, Mary is the mother of Christ in regards to only His humanitity. She is not the Mother of Him in regards to His divinity. The term “Mother of God” for too many people conveys the notion that Mary is the mother of Christ in regard to both His divinty and His humanity.
I like the practice that I have observed among my Orthodox friends of not translating “Theotokos” into “Mother of God” or “God Bearer” or anything else. They just simply say (or chant) “Theotokos” and when somebody asks what that means, they explain it easily.
“I am not trying to convince you on this but trying to explain it to you, as your terms are confused a bit. “
I appreciate your explanations. Sorry if my comments are confusing. That’s what happens when I try to write too early in the morning.
I understand what you are saying about Mary being an intercessor. It’s just that many protestants don’t believe in the ascension of Mary, so she is now sleeping in Christ.
Do you believe Jesus Christ actually has a co-redeemer? Because this is what I was taught as a Catholic... that Mary is Christ’s co-redemptrix, and that she is actually the woman who would crush the serpent’s head and save the world. And we were also taught that Mary was sinless, and we practiced Marian worship, which is not biblical. Yes, it’s Catholic doctrine, but I only believe what the Bible teaches.
I trust then that they are explaining it correctly. Theotokos has a very specific meaning and that meaning is not Christotokos. The meaning, in English, admittedly a very, very bad language to discuss Christian theology in, is "Birthgiver", or "Birther" of God. The "of God" part is absolutely vital to an understanding of Who Jesus is.
It is unfortunate that the English translation causes heartburn for some Westerners and it would no doubt be better to use the "Theotokos" or even "Bogoritsa" or "Wālidat Allah", both of which mean the exact same thing, Slavonic and Arabic not suffering from the profound defects of English when discussing Christian theology.
With the renewal under JPII and BXVI, such rogue parishes are hopefully going to be a thing of the past.
All I can tell you is that our parish has solid Biblical instruction and the concordances and Bibles are very well thumbed (although I still use KJV and Douay-Rheims where that edition varies, because the language of the NAB is . . . underwhelming.) Moreover, my personal Bible study and reading led me into the Catholic Church . . . so simply reading Scripture is not an open-and-shut condemnation of Catholic doctrine. In fact, private personal interpretation of Scripture has gotten a lot of folks into trouble over the years.
I’m no fan of the A. of C., but these Protestant critics should also realize that belief in the various Marian apparitions, at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, etc., even if declared “worthy of belief” by the Church, are completely optional. The public revelation of Jesus Christ was final and ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist. Private revelations may be believed if they help our faith and are not inconsistent with the deposit of faith, but no Catholic has to believe them.
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Since Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, what is the problem with this verse referring to "the man Christ Jesus?"
I have heard my (Orthodox) priest quote this verse in the context of emphasizing Jesus Christ's full humanity, his love for us and that our humanity is with God the Father due to the incarnation.
Am I missing something?
You aren’t the first to say my experience was not the norm. I truly hope that is the case, because a lot of bad things happened there. Unfortunately, what happened in my parish was typical of the whole diocese. The cardinal turned a blind eye to problems. I don’t know what’s happening there currently.
We did not study scripture much in catechism. We talked about topics related to scripture, but with unbiblical beliefs attached. And yes, there was scripture in the homilies, but again expounded upon based on the doctrines and traditions of man.
One thing that’s always struck me about this rejection on the part of some for the title “Mother of God” is just as you said, “Mary can’t be the mother of His divine nature, only his human nature”.
Despite the fact that this really IS the definition of Nestorianism, it really doesn’t fully appreciate what a “mother” is, for anyone.
Your mother, my mother, everyone’s mother “bore” us in her womb, that doesn’t mean she “created” our soul. She had a hand in creating our humanity, but not our soul. But she’s still the mother of both, because that’s what mothers do, they “bear” the child in them, that is, carry it to term to deliver it to the world.
So the term “God bearer” (theotokos) fits perfectly well with “Mother of God”, just as our mothers “bore” us in their womb, being the “mother of our soul”.
“.That makes Mary the Mother of God. Do Protestants deny this? ...”
None that I know!!
I feel I should point out in the interests of fairness that what ViLaLuz said regarding “reading the Bible on your own” is actually quite common among “older” Catholics. My grandmother, for example recently told me how she was told to not read the Bible on her own, as it might lead her to error. One can go to many “older” Catholics (people over say 60, who were/are cradle Catholics) and ask them if they were told this, I’d be willing to wager they were.
What one must realize is that before Vatican II this was the norm, really, as even to associate with Protestants was considered “sinful”. Many, including myself, like to criticize the reforms made in Vatican II (and with good reason, sometimes, I believe, don’t get me wrong, it was taken too far to the “left” so to speak), but there were some solidly good things done in that Council, namely the re-emphasis of Scripture as important in daily life. “Ignorance of the Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ.”, as the venerable St. Jerome is quoted as saying in our most recent Catechism.
All of this said, anyone reading this post right now must realize it was TECHNICALLY, never really official Church teaching to discourage people from reading the Bible on their own, but in practice, before Vatican II, it was very common to do so. So we should focus on what is being taught today, and not dwell on the mistakes of many men (not the Church, but men IN the Church) in the past.
Now, today Catholics in every parish are encouraged to read Scripture, reflect on it, and ask their local priest for instruction should questions arise. (which really isn’t THAT much different than the “Catholicism of our grandparents” if one really thinks about it)
I think some of what was going on is also common to every denomination (and I bet it's common with non-Christian beliefs as well). When you're teaching the little kids (or even the medium-sized kids), you tend to simplify difficult questions and short-cut a lot of stuff. First-graders are not going to care about (or be able to digest) explanations of the Hypostatic Union or for that matter Biblical Inerrancy or Predestination.
If somebody falls away in high school or college (hey - I did!) but returns to another church (in whichever direction), and all they remember is the simplified-for-kids version of the Church's teachings that they learned in Sunday School or CCD, then they are comparing apples and oranges.
LOL! So obvious once it's pointed out -- I can't believe I didn't think of it!
Right/s. Perhpas you didn't stick around long enough to hear the "It is Truly Meet" hymn right after the consecration of the Gifts:
Wrong question. Ask yourself "Was the Word Incarnate before the Annunciation?" No. Was Jesus the same Second Person of the Godhead? Yes, one and the same.
So, the product put forth was still God, Incarnate God, the Second Person of the Godhead, who took on the human form and nature and soul, and not some other person attached to the Word, but God Incarnate, a perfect God and a perfect man.
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.