Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary, the Mother of God (a defense)
cerc ^ | FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

Posted on 01/02/2010 3:07:57 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last
To: NYer
"The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the "human person" then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins. "

Yes that's it. This 'where is it in the Bible' nonsense comes from those who think the Bible is God and not just words and actions of God. John wrote that all is not contained in the Bible.

Jesus [God] believed in teaching through people, both good and bad. The 'Bible' records He only wrote once in sand but He sent people to spread His word.

To those who believe Jesus is God, no proof is necessary and for those who don't believe Jesus is God, no proof is possible.

51 posted on 01/03/2010 7:40:22 AM PST by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
On June 22, 431, the Council of Ephesus convened to settle this argument. The Council declared, "If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel is truly God and therefore that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos) (since she begot according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh), anathema sit." Therefore, the Council officially recognized that Jesus is one person, with two natures — human and divine — united in a true union. Second, Ephesus affirmed that our Blessed Mother can rightfully be called the Mother of God: Mary is not Mother of God, the Father, or Mother of God, the Holy Spirit; rather, she is Mother of God, the Son — Jesus Christ. The Council of Ephesus declared Nestorius a heretic, and the Emperor Theodosius ordered him deposed and exiled.

Ephesus affirmed that our Blessed Mother can rightfully be called the Mother of God: Mary is not Mother of God, the Father, or Mother of God, the Holy Spirit; rather, she is Mother of God, the Son — Jesus Christ.

Nonsense...You can't separate God from the Holy Spirit from Jesus...They are one...If Mary is the mother of God, the Son, she would also have to be the mother of God the Father...And that's ridiculous...

And then that religion had Nestorius deposed and exiled...

52 posted on 01/03/2010 8:19:14 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazzdawg
...how come the disciples did not instantly begin worshipping Mary?

Instantly?

Mary isn't worshiped at all...instantly or belatedly.

53 posted on 01/03/2010 8:22:34 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Of course she is the mother of God. That doesn’t mean we are to worship her.

Congratulations: you agree with the Catholic Church!

54 posted on 01/03/2010 8:23:32 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jihadi Du Jour
As a revert to Catholicism I had the opportunity to work in the spiritual guidance department of the Billy Graham Association both as a Protestant and then as a Catholic.

How could you possibly have been a spiritual advisor as a Protestant and then as a Catholic???

55 posted on 01/03/2010 8:26:54 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
How could you possibly have been a spiritual advisor as a Protestant and then as a Catholic???

Perhaps the Billy Graham Association did not see a need to punish him for his spiritual advancement.

If this surprises you, you should consider again that the vast majority of protestants do not hate the Catholic Church in ways we see evidenced on this thread.

56 posted on 01/03/2010 8:29:40 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: peteram; Lauren BaRecall
But, doctrinally speaking, it IS faith + works.

contrary to what many “protestants” are being told, Catholicism does not teach works to get into heaven

You guys crack me up...

57 posted on 01/03/2010 8:48:56 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jazzdawg
After Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to the disciples, and then ascended into Heaven, how come the disciples did not instantly begin worshipping Mary?

The disciples did not worship Mary for the same reason that we do not worship her, namely, she is not God.

Or did I miss Peter’s words about Mary’s “holiness” and her being our intercessor on Pentecost?

What you *did* miss is the fullness of the meaning of Cana.

58 posted on 01/03/2010 8:59:46 AM PST by Lauren BaRecall (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

How it really is:

The Virgin Mary is the Daughter of the Father, the Mother of the Son, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Such is her relationship with the Holy Trinity. She is unique in all creation and played a unique role in salvation history.

If you find it difficult to wrap your mind around these mysteries, feel free to join the club. None of us will fully understand these things, because we are not God. But one thing we do know is that “the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.”


59 posted on 01/03/2010 9:11:15 AM PST by Lauren BaRecall (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: saullysallu
Icons of Mary always include Jesus (unlike Roman statuary where Mary is sometimes by herself)....

A personal reflection, rather than Church teaching:

Mary has appeared to individuals world-wide, down through the ages, sometimes alone, and sometimes with Jesus, and no one who believes in the existence of these apparitions has ever believed that Mary is Divine. But apparitions are another subject.

Religious art sprung up, not as mere images or statues, but rather to point to some truth. To the present day, nothing has been/is created to give a message that Mary has a Divine nature, nor are they ever interpreted as such.

Some things are just common sense. I have pictures of my mother without my father, and in no way are they an insult to my father, nor do they diminsh who he was.

60 posted on 01/03/2010 9:36:39 AM PST by Lauren BaRecall (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: saullysallu

saullysallu:

I am not into getting into polemics with our esteemed Eastern Orthodox brethren on this site as getting into threads with some of these Protestants does enough to test my Sicilian temper. With respect to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome defining Mary’s Immaculate Conception is entirely consistent with the Eastern Orthodox Church’s referring to Mary as “Panagia”, the “All-Holy” and when united with “Theotokos” one gets the translation All-Holy Mother of God which is consistent with the language used in the Catholic Church in the Rosary “Holy Mary Mother of God Pray for Us Sinners”, etc.

Back to the Eastern Term “Panagia”, it reflects the Eastern Church’s reflection on St. Luke’s passage “Hail Mary Full of Grace” (cf. Luke 1:28, reflecting St. Jerome’s Latin translation from the Greek) and the Eastern Fathers declaring that Mary was free from stain of sin and fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.

So, in the Western Church, you get formal definition of “Immaculate Conception” specifiying “how God formed Mary into a new creature” whereas in the Eastern Tradition, you say it happened by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, but don’t define it like Rome does.

As for the original point of the thread, this refers what I have stated for years since I have been posting here that many of the Prostants on this site embrace major Christological heresies as evidenced by this thread [Nestorianism, Modalism, etc]

Blessed Ephiphany to you and all our Orthodox brethren around the world


61 posted on 01/03/2010 10:36:18 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; vladimir998; kosta50; annalex

“...wait, you don’t know anything about how I arrived at my thinking, do you?”

Sure I do; I read your about page.

“I am sorry you missed my point, but it has nothing to do with being against Roman Catholism.”

You wrongly claimed that the term Theotokos was dreamed up by some teachers in Rome. That is untrue. If you knew that was untrue, why did you post it? If you didn’t know what you were talking about, why did you post anything?

“I was responding to the OP about the council regarding Nestorian.”

I know what the thread was about and what you were responding to. The Council was in Ephesus, btw, not Rome and the heretic’s name was “Nestrorius” not “Nestorian”.

“My point is, if you find yourself having to backtrack to try to explain to the “unenlightened” that although Mary is referred to as Mother of God, you don’t mean it to imply she is to be worshipped alongside the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, that she did not preceed the Son nor is she sitting on her own special throne right next to them, then why come up with the unscriptural title in the first place?”

Orthodoxy has never taught anything like that; the Creed makes it clear that she did not precede the Logos and we have no idea where she is “sitting”. The “unscriptural” (what would +Elizabeth know, right?) title Theotokos was applied to make clear that Christ is indeed God and not some demi-god a la Arius or divinely animated human form drone a la Nestorius. You do believe that Christ is God do you not?

“Finally, I am not trying to “advance my Protestantism”.”

Of course you are, your very own version of it. It appears to have as its defining hallmark the expected degree of anti-Romanism purely for the sake of anti-Romanism.

“I am still allowed, right?”

Of course you are still allowed. You can embrace any of the ancient heresies you wish, but when called on it, it would be better if you had a good scriptural and/or patristic or even scholastic argument for you position (+Paul’s epistles are full of good stuff to (wrongly in my opinion) base heresy on)and leave off the “Rome came up with this so it must be wrong” routine.


62 posted on 01/03/2010 1:08:13 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: saullysallu
"Icons of Mary always include Jesus (unlike Roman statuary where Mary is sometimes by herself)"

Oh? The Icon of the Visitation almost never shows Christ. For example:

There are others, for example, virtually all Annunciation icons:

I trust your spiritual father didn't teach you that, s. God Bless you in catechumenate.

63 posted on 01/03/2010 1:19:45 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis


Oranta, St. Sophia Cathedral, Kiev


64 posted on 01/03/2010 1:30:12 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jazzdawg

You wrote:

“...how come the disciples did not instantly begin worshipping Mary?”

We don’t worship Mary. The Apostles didn’t worship Mary.

“She was still among them was she not?”

Yep.

“If they believed that she was the “easy way” to the Way, the Truth, and the Life (Jesus), then why did they preach only about Jesus.”

Because He had JUST RISEN from the dead and many people knew of Him.

“Or did I miss Peter’s words about Mary’s “holiness” and her being our intercessor on Pentecost?”

You apparently missed many things.


65 posted on 01/03/2010 1:41:37 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jazzdawg; vladimir998; kosta50; annalex; NYer; saullysallu
You know, this Protestant canard that those of us in The Church "worship" Mary, the Most Holy Theotokos, really ought to stop.

jd, we had an Ecumenical Council in the late 8th century dealing with the Iconoclast controversy which had devastated The Church for decades before. After declaring iconoclasm heresy, the Holy Fathers of the Council proclaimed:

""We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor ( timitiki proskynisis ), but not of real worship ( latreia ), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands."

jd, there is no way that The Church can make it any clearer. Worship (latreia) is reserved for God, the saints and the Most Holy Theotokos we venerate and honor. There is a universe of difference between latreia on the one hand and timitiki and proskynisis on the other...just as there is in English.

66 posted on 01/03/2010 3:02:34 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall
The Virgin Mary is the Daughter of the Father, the Mother of the Son, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Such is her relationship with the Holy Trinity. She is unique in all creation and played a unique role in salvation history.

Mary, who hasn't been a virgin for a couple thousand years now was not the daughter of the Father...That idea is a hold over from the various Pagan religions of the Romans in that day...She was also called the Queen of Heaven...Ring a bell???

Interesting thing about the 'spouse' of the Holy Spirit...There was no wedding ceremony under the Jewish Law, nor did the marriage take place in a Catholic church performed by a cleric...Since God makes no errors, you have to conclude that Mary was not the Holy Spirit's spouse, unless, the marriage took place due to the consumation and that's not a very popular view...

I think it's safe to say that Mary was not wedded to the Holy Spirit...Interesting stuff...

If you find it difficult to wrap your mind around these mysteries, feel free to join the club. None of us will fully understand these things, because we are not God. But one thing we do know is that “the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.”

Nope, I'm not going to join the club...And since you guys don't understand it, what business do you have making the thing up???

67 posted on 01/03/2010 3:27:52 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Melian
But where in Scripture does it tell you that Christ will forever exist with the nail scars, even in his glorified body?

Well we see that from Luke 24:39-40, Jesus was in his glorified body in that he appeared suddenly to them. He was obviously not looking the same as he was before the crucifixion because earlier in that chapter he appeared to some including Peter, and they did not recognize him. He showed them his hands and feet. He was afterwards lifted up into heaven in this same form. Also in John 20:20 he showed his hands, feet and side. Thomas was not there then so he appeared again to them including Thomas, eight days later. Same demonstration verses 26-27.

See Zechariah 12:10 for a WOW verse. "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." There is another verse where Jehovah says ,"See, I have engraved you upon the palms of my hands." So yes, I believe these scars will always be there as a reminder to us. Praise be to him!

68 posted on 01/03/2010 3:27:58 PM PST by boatbums (Pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
there is no way that The Church can make it any clearer. Worship (latreia) is reserved for God, the saints and the Most Holy Theotokos we venerate and honor. There is a universe of difference between latreia on the one hand and timitiki and proskynisis on the other...just as there is in English.

Problem is, you guys think you get to define what worship is, and is not...I don't think that's the way it works...

69 posted on 01/03/2010 3:37:19 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Jesus Christ Himself defined what worship is when He instituted the Sacred Liturgy on Holy Thursday, the night before He died. Today it is found in the Western and Eastern Churches, i.e., those united with Rome, and the Orthodox Churches. Although in different Rites, it is the one Sacred Liturgy.


70 posted on 01/03/2010 6:28:23 PM PST by Lauren BaRecall (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Problem is, you guys think you get to define what worship is, and is not...I don't think that's the way it works...

Actually, the real problem here is that you think you get to decide the intent of others. It certainly does not work that way.

71 posted on 01/03/2010 6:30:44 PM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Mary, who hasn't been a virgin for a couple thousand years now...

The anti-Catholic bigot's obsession with Mary's sex life a is uniquely creepy fetish.

72 posted on 01/03/2010 6:33:21 PM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Since God makes no errors, you have to conclude that Mary was not the Holy Spirit's spouse...

God makes no errors.

Iscool, on the other hand...*lolz*

73 posted on 01/03/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
That idea is a hold over from the various Pagan religions of the Romans in that day...She was also called the Queen of Heaven...Ring a bell???

Of course. But no pagan goddess or personage actually was Queen of Heaven, because they were not real. They were pagan.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is not pagan. She is Christian...the first Christian, actually.

74 posted on 01/03/2010 6:38:25 PM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Easy Iscool... I spoke the truth.


75 posted on 01/03/2010 7:11:35 PM PST by Jihadi Du Jour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Mary, who hasn't been a virgin for a couple thousand years now....

Her Holy Virginity is perpetual.

...was not the daughter of the Father...That idea is a hold over from the various Pagan religions of the Romans in that day...She was also called the Queen of Heaven...Ring a bell???

If Mary, of all people, has no right to be called Daughter of the Father, then we have no right to be called children of God. She is a co-heir of heaven along with us, although gloriously exalted because of her particular God created identity.

Interesting thing about the 'spouse' of the Holy Spirit...There was no wedding ceremony under the Jewish Law, nor did the marriage take place in a Catholic church performed by a cleric...Since God makes no errors, you have to conclude that Mary was not the Holy Spirit's spouse, unless, the marriage took place due to the consumation and that's not a very popular view...

I think it's safe to say that Mary was not wedded to the Holy Spirit...Interesting stuff...

One thing that Protestantism has a great difficulty with is the concept of mystery. The spousal relationship that Mary had, and has, with the Holy Spirit is a mystical one. It's one of those things we will never fully understand.

Nope, I'm not going to join the club...And since you guys don't understand it, what business do you have making the thing up???

The Holy Spirit has revealed Truth - we did not make these things up. There is no way you can convince me that you fully comprehend the Mind of God - you being as much a created being as are each of us.

[9] For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
[10] but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
[11] When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child;
when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
[12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall
understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
1 COR 13: 9-12 RSV

We will understand more in Heaven, but we will never fully comprehend God. If we did, then we would be His equal.

76 posted on 01/03/2010 7:21:00 PM PST by Lauren BaRecall (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

I know He appeared to the Apostles with the marks of His crucifixion right up to the Ascension, so, yes, they did look upon Him whom they’d pierced; but it’s a long stretch to then say Scripture tells us He will bear those marks for eternity.

Aren’t you putting your own interpretation on Scripture? As many say, “show me in the Bible where it says that.” All we know is that He had the marks up until He ascended into heaven. There is no proof of eternal marks in Scripture.

I find it strange that you cited 5 passages in which the word eternity, forever, or the future are not mentioned as proof of your opinion. Meanwhile, Catholics can cite 20-30 passages that are the basis for one of their beliefs and are told “that’s not in the Bible, it’s unscriptural, etc.”

A very interesting inconsistency. I would say Catholics certainly have as much proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as you have that Christ will bear the marks of His crucifixion in His glorified body for all eternity.


77 posted on 01/03/2010 9:21:58 PM PST by Melian ("Here's the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost." ~Archbishop Charles Chaput)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
It is pretty easy to give Christian counsel to Protestants or Catholics because the basics of the faith are the same. In my capacity in spiritual guidance I would answer each question specifically and acoordingly. No pat answers. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has a set of guidelines for it's counselors and a monitoring process and supervision with prevented many problems, but I was pretty free to deal with any questions posed.

I have a very broad understanding of theology and the development of Christian doctrine. That knowledge helps me counsel from within the persons own tradition rather than use it as a tool for proselytizing.

Here is an example from 1998...regarding abortion and family planning...

78 posted on 01/04/2010 6:34:29 AM PST by Jihadi Du Jour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Melian; boatbums
A very interesting inconsistency

Well that's the rule isn't it? If Christ's glorified body had marks of his crucifixion then what is there to indicate that he will not bear them for all eternity? (BTW, just where is that body physically?)

Yet the church leads one to believe that a glorified body will be restored to its perfect form and the resurrected beings will appear as if in the prime of their lives! But, that perfection and "prime" will be for naught, since we will be like angels...if you know what I mean, and vanity will have no part in our existence whatsoever. And aren't angels bodiless creatures...so there is nothing but inconsistency to be found, conveniently, as you say.

79 posted on 01/05/2010 7:15:12 AM PST by kosta50 (Don't look up -- the truth is all around you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

That’s why I think we can’t make a pronouncement one way or another. Nowhere does it state Christ will wear the marks of His crucifixion for all eternity. At the end of the world, there would be no need to wear them anymore. It will have all been resolved and the sheep will have been separated from the goats. All is perfection in heaven. Still, He may choose to wear them. I don’t know. No one does.

My point was that the poster was making a proclamation based on inferences in a few passages. Yet he often takes Catholics to task for inferences based on 20-30 passages. That’s inconsistent, don’t you think?


80 posted on 01/05/2010 5:46:07 PM PST by Melian ("Here's the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost." ~Archbishop Charles Chaput)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Melian
That’s why I think we can’t make a pronouncement one way or another

Glorified bodies are perfected and perfect (which means complete, or finished) is by deifnition changeless. So, no, Christ's perfected body would not change at the end of times, lest it be imperfect. If Christ's glorified body had marks of crucifixion then it was not perfected, ye the NT says it was.

That may be so, but this time she was spot on.

81 posted on 01/05/2010 8:33:29 PM PST by kosta50 (Don't look up -- the truth is all around you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; boatbums

God can do anything. He can even change a glorified body or redefine what glorified means. He can remove the marks whenever He wills it.

The passages boatbums cited tell us Jesus wore the marks when he appeared to the Apostles after He rose. If I was like some Protestants, I would tell boatbums that he/she can’t hold that opinion that Christ will wear the marks forever because it isn’t explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Therefore, it can’t be true and it’s just the foolish tradition of men.

Now you tell me that you think it’s plausible to surmise what boatbums surmises, though there is no scriptural proof spelled out as many Protestants insist it has to be. You can’t have it both ways.

Either the Catholic Church and boatbums have the proof necessary for their beliefs (because they have passages that hint at or support them), or boatbums and the Catholic Church cannot hold those beliefs because they are not specifically and explicitly spelled out, word for word, in Scripture.

And THAT is the inconsistency. IIRC, boatbums is one of the posters who often chastises Catholics because they can’t cite a bald-faced statement from Scripture for some of their beliefs.

Personally, I think boatbums is probably right and Christ will wear the marks as a sign of His humanity forever. And, likewise, I think the Catholic Church is correct in its interpretation of John 6 and the meaning of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We have MANY more passages to cite for that belief than boatbums has to support his.


82 posted on 01/05/2010 9:12:31 PM PST by Melian ("Here's the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost." ~Archbishop Charles Chaput)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Following his own reasoning, Nestorious asserted that the human Jesus died on the cross, not the divine Jesus. As such, Mary is not "Mother of God," but simply "Mother of Christ" — the human Jesus. Sound confusing?

No, not at all...

It is, but the result is the splitting of Christ into two persons and the denial of the incarnation.

That isn't true at all...The more I read of Nestorius, the more I tend to agree with him...

83 posted on 01/05/2010 10:29:29 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melian; boatbums
God can do anything. He can even change a glorified body or redefine what glorified means. He can remove the marks whenever He wills it

That's sophism. If something is perfect then it is unchanging, by definition. But if perfect can be imperfect then we cannot even talk about perfections or, for that matter, God himself.

We can only talk about God within the confines of our minds, and terms that define and limit our scope of understanding. Everything else is speculation, including your statement above.

So, either glorified bodies are restored or they are not; a body is either dead or alive, something either exists or doesn't exist, etc.

The passages boatbums cited tell us Jesus wore the marks when he appeared to the Apostles after He rose

First, they were not apostles yet, but only his disciples (students). There is a difference. Second, unless the marks were only illusionary his body was not restored, even though the Bible leads us to believe it was.

I would tell boatbums that he/she can’t hold that opinion that Christ will wear the marks forever because it isn’t explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Therefore, it can’t be true and it’s just the foolish tradition of men

If the Bible says or hints that his body was restored/glorified then she has all biblical evidence, for what it's worth, that he will wear his marks forever and that his body was not really restored. So, we have a contradiction. Nothing new there. The Bible is full of them.

Now you tell me that you think it’s plausible to surmise what boatbums surmises, though there is no scriptural proof spelled out as many Protestants insist it has to be. You can’t have it both ways

There is no scriptural proof that Mary either died or was assumed bodily into heaven yet the latter it is a Catholic dogma. Catholics should be the last people on earth arguing that something cannot be surmised because there is no scriptural proof for it. Besides, 'scriptural" is a matter of definition as well.

Either the Catholic Church and boatbums have the proof necessary for their beliefs (because they have passages that hint at or support them), or boatbums and the Catholic Church cannot hold those beliefs because they are not specifically and explicitly spelled out, word for word, in Scripture

Where is your scriptural proof of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven or of three co-equal hypostases of the Godhead? In fact, scriptures show evidence to the contrary. All early Christian apologists preached suboridnatrionalist Trinity.

84 posted on 01/06/2010 8:58:08 AM PST by kosta50 (Don't look up -- the truth is all around you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; boatbums

I understand the desire to turn my argument into something easier to dispute.

The facts are that boatbums professed a belief that is not specifically spelled out in Scripture and I am reminding boatbums that Catholics are frequently ridiculed for doing that- with far more proof than boatbums has. You made my point for me when you said the Bible HINTS Christ’s body was glorified. I guess it’s suddenly okay for Protestants to decide to believe in things HINTED about in the Bible, but Catholics are silly for believing Jesus when he said, specifically, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life.” (John 6:54) No hinting there at all. He was direct, specific, and clear. He let many followers walk away over this statement. It was a bald-faced proclamation of God’s hard Truth. THAT’s perfect and unchanging.

Unless, of course, you’re reading the revised version of the Bible that men dared to cut passages out of— but that’s your choice.

Protestants make arbitrary choices about what to believe in the Bible and what not to believe. Catholics believe what Jesus said. Literally. I cannot understand the disconnect in Protestant thought. They claim to love the Word of God above all else— and then choose to ignore and ridicule Christ’s own words, faithfully recorded by the apostle Jesus loved most.

Inconsistent, at best. I am so happy to be Catholic.


85 posted on 01/06/2010 9:35:13 PM PST by Melian ("Here's the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost." ~Archbishop Charles Chaput)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Melian; kosta50

I think you are building a false construct comparing what I personally believe about the nail marks on Jesus’ body, which IS what you specifically asked me about. I think the scripture is very clear that Jesus was in his glorified state (he did suddenly appear to them, walked through a wall?). He, on several occasions encouraged them to look at and feel the wounds AFTER the resurrection. So, no, I don’t think I am giving myself a “bye” on this point while I “chastise” Catholics about the Eucharist or other doctrines. I do not ridicule or call them “silly” for believing what they do because I know, as a former Catholic, that we are to accept what we are taught, without questioning.

I think you may have problems with generalized comments like “Protestants make arbitrary choices” and “Catholics believe what Jesus said.” Because we both know these pat statements are not always true.

We could get into the difference between what main-stream Protestants and Catholics believe about the doctrine of Communion/Eucharist/The Lord’s Supper, but I’m pretty sure you wont be swayed from what you are comfortable believing and I wont be either. This topic has been bashed about many times on the RF. I see no need to go there again since the main topic of this post is concerning the titles of Mary. I assure you the inconsistency you think you see is not really there. I have never and will never ridicule nor ignore the word of God. It is the basis of faith and truth.

Be happy, but also know what you believe and why you believe it. Peace to you in the new year!


86 posted on 01/06/2010 10:17:47 PM PST by boatbums (Pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

No one is denying that Jesus was in a glorified state. My issue is that you have very thin Scriptural evidence for assuming that Christ will choose to remain in that particular glorified state, with the marks of the crucifixion, “for all eternity.” He can remain in any form of glorified state He chooses- or change the form daily, if He chooses. Did he not glow more brightly as He was ascending into Heaven? Was that not a change in His glorified state from the day before?

I then pointed out the inconsistency of choosing to believe He will keep the marks based on the handful of scriptures, most of them not mentioning His glorified state or anything to do with eternity, that you cited. I then reminded you that you and others have taken Catholics to task for beliefs we have many, many scriptural passages to support.

I don’t have a problem with generalized or pat comments. The Protestant stance on Bible Alone is not consistent and is sometime arbitrary. I offered John 6:54 as a perfect example of that. The inconsistency IS there.

Catholics have as much scriptural proof that Mary was unique and special in her role in the redemption of man as you have for your belief that Christ will wear the marks of the crucifixion for all eternity. More, in fact. If you have chosen to ignore the words of John 6:54, then you have, in fact, chosen to ignore the Word of God, as it was faithfully recorded, preached, and lived by John himself— the apostle that Christ loved most.

Surely the Holy Spirit would inspire John, Christ’s favorite apostle to record Christ’s words and deeds correctly! Surely the early Church would teach and practice what John wrote correctly! He was still alive to tell them they were doing it wrong, had they been.

They were not wrong and Catholics are not wrong today. We take the words of Christ and live them as they were intended, as John and Peter and the other apostles lived them.

Catholics are not taught to believe without questioning. Maybe you were badly taught, however. It IS inconsistent to use the Protestant Bible if you love the word of God since mere men removed parts of it that they decided they didn’t like anymore, after hundreds of years. Wasn’t God’s Word perfect as it was first written? How dare men leave one word out! Much less whole passages, chapters and books! It’s “the basis of faith and truth.”

I am happy; I know very well what I believe. When I had doubts and questions, I went and found the answers. The Catholic Church has them all. It’s condescending to assume I (or any Catholic) haven’t examined or questioned, based on YOUR life and choices.

I say to you, out of love and concern, if you believe scripture is sacred, you should be reading the Catholic bible- the one with all the divinely inspired passages intact.


87 posted on 01/07/2010 5:58:53 AM PST by Melian ("Here's the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost." ~Archbishop Charles Chaput)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-87 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson