Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
It is that time of week again, where we talk about the Mary, the Mother of God. This is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up. So let us look at this most important title.
Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.” Now just that statement alone proves the early Church believed that there was Authority given to the bishops to decide sound doctrine, Mary was a Holy Virgin her entire life, and that She bore God. However, we only have time for one today.
Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture. I bet they can never find that. This is a trap they set up for themselves and it is a very unfair double standard that they expect us to meet, but they do not have to. However, on top of this double standard is if we used that same standard, then the doctrine of the Trinity is thrown out, since it’s not an explicit teaching, but instead is implicit in Scripture. This double standard seems to cause more problems that it’s worth wouldn’t you say?
Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not. With that being said, Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another. The Traditions of men can contradict the Word of God, but the Traditions God left us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, are binding upon us, as we are to hold fast to Traditions. So then, what is the real question? The real question is, Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and is that doctrine found in Scripture at least implicitly?
Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.
We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” Jesus is God. He was God when He was in the womb, conceived, lived, died, buried, resurrected, in the Eucharist, and in Heaven. The Messiah, who is God, was to be born of a virgin, according to Scripture. God was born of a virgin, and it’s right there in Isaiah, who prophesied of Christ birth. That means both Old and New Testament support the Catholic Doctrine of the Mother of God.
However, this may not be enough for some non-Catholics. Some say that Elisabeth called Christ Lord, and not God, saying that Mary was only to give birth to the human child, the Lord Jesus Christ. So then the question becomes, does lord here mean divinity or just authority? Let’s look at the context.
First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the one True, Lord, as opposed to all the false ones, that the pagans who converted in Corinth were probably worshiping. So then, they would understand that Jesus is God. This holds true to the Jews who converted too, who would know Deut. 6:4 “Hear, therefore, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”
So then that brings us back to Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. The Mother…Mothers give birth to persons, not natures, let us remember that. Mary did not just give birth to the human nature of Christ, she gave birth to the person of Christ. Christ personhood is Divine, it is God the Son.
Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)” Then in 2 Samuel 616 we see King David leaping in the presence of the Ark, just as John the Baptist did. Then we yet again see another parallel, which says that the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite for three months (2 Sam. 6:11), and according to Luke 1:56 Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth about three months. Then, we see that the ark of the covenant carried three items, manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod. These are all types of things Christ are, the Bread of Life, Word made Flesh, and our true High Priest.
Even knowing all this though, there are still those who would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So then we have to ask, who is Jesus Christ to them? If Mary is not the Mother of God, then who did she give birth to? Many would say it was an earthly human lord, not God. So then, what does that make Christ? If Mary did not give birth to God, then who did she give birth to? Was not Christ God when He was conceived?
If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors, or both could happen, and that is the Denial of the divinity of Christ, and that one would have to say Christ is two distinct persons, and that he is not One. Both were considered heresy in the Early Church. Christ is one Person, with two natures, Divine and Human, which go together and are not separate of one another. If one denies that, the ultimately they are speaking about a different Christ, and St. Paul warns us about that problem, and to not to give heed to them (2 Cor. 11:4).
So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far, however, this is not true. Mary gave birth to the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2nd Person, who is still God just not the Trinity. However, we must never forget that each Person in the Trinity shares the same Divine Nature and is fully God.
One thing some still point out is that Christ is eternal, so for Mary to be the Mother of God she would have to be God. However the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To better understand this let’s look at humanity. Parents give birth to a person, however they are not the author of life, and certainly did not give the child it’s soul. Thus is true with Mary, she did not give Christ His Divine Nature, though she was the Mother of more than just the human form of Christ, because she gave birth to a person, who was God.
Luther was a devout Catholic priest, at one time (before he went “nuts”).
Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven. Moses died and God buried him; yet he appeared with Elijah to witness the Messiah’s glory.
There were others (Lazarus, etc.) who died and were raised from the dead. There is no explanation if they were assumed into heaven.
I agree. Reference His conversation with the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-22 (NASB). Is selling all of your poessessions one of the requirements for salvation?
And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man *said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be [a]complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
**Was Jesus lying when he said that if we eat his body and drink his blood, he will raise us up to eternal life?**
That is switching the subject a bit, but is one ‘mass’ enough for eternal life? If not, how many are needed? Some of the most dedicated ‘mass’ partakers, that I know personally, are totally dedicated democrats; liberals to the max.
Wow, and a priest.
Cogent thing to ask! But of course int he religion of catholiciism the life comes and goes int eh Mass participants. The god life in catholiciism is sort of like a yoyo, it is in them then it isn’t then it is, then it isn’t, so the institution is vital to re-up the god of catholiciiism into the adherents. Pretty crafty, that, making the institution and the leaders of same essential to the final ends of the adherents. Of course, that is opposite what God established when Jesus started His Chruch of believers. He didn’t establish and institution, He began building His Body, His Bride to be.
Makes you wonder if they study the ccc or the Word in catholic seminaries.
You noticed that, too?
Who knows?
It just takes some pretty basic Bible reading to know those facts.
Besides your fallacious mind reading, I need not find all that you responded to, as it was you who first initiated debate with me by invoking a document which pertains to the use of Christotokos vs. Theotokos, and your slippery slope "drift" into heresy assertion which you bring me into.
Mother of Jesus is not a denial of His deity, Where exactly did I write that it was ? No where
You argued,
I have sympathy for those who realize they cannot remove "God" from "Mother of God (with us)," having been warned by others they are starting down the path of heresy.
And it seems in that interest you invoked "an OK English translation" of the Chalcedonian Definition - which pertains to the Nestorian heresy and its Christotokos vs. Theotokos issue- "in Greek with an English translation, aptly pointing out those teaching otherwise on the nature of Messiah fall into heresy," as if this Chalcedonian Definition was definitive and the rejection of "Mother of God" means one is are starting down the path of heresy.
Yet in reality the term Theotokos — Θεοτοκος — does not mean the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation. ( (“The Significance of the Term Theotokos” from The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Fr. Georges Florovsky) June, 1987).
And the Chalcedonian Definition which pertains to Christology which the extensive and complex affair called the "Nestorian heresy" is part of and its Christotokos vs. Theotokos issue, but simply using Christotokos over MOG does not deny the Divinity of Christ.
The heres is in the details of Nestorianism, but the "drift toward heresy" either by ignorantly holding to a form of monophysitism or dyophysitism via the "slippery slope" principle, due to the use of "mother of Jesus" vs. MOG could be a charge against writers of Holy Writ themselves, and is manifestly a more valid charge as concerns the use of "MOG."
For evangelicals have overall been strong defenders of the deity of Christ, which i substantiate myself, and of basic Trinitarian teaching, leaving Sabellianism/OPC types being relegated as reproved heretics.
However, rather than even preferring Theotokos, Caths unequivocally invoke MOG as part of their elevation of the demigoddess Mary of Catholicism described before.
Moreover, . while I doubt first century converts (esp. new ones) had much of a understanding of precisely what was meant by Christ Jesus taking upon him "the form of a servant," and being "made in the likeness of men," (Philippians 2:7) taking on "the seed of Abraham," (Heb. 2:16) as the Word/God made flesh, (Jn. 1:1,14) they implicitly and explicitly ascribed deity to Him as the Son and Savior sent by the Father, and prayed to and worshiped as God.
But NT souls certainly did not engage in the supererogation of adulation given to the false Mary of Catholicism, including bowing down to statues of her in praise and supplications, and attributing to her Divine attributes.
It is such devotion and worship (if done by pagans it would be called that) under the pretense of "veneration" that makes reasonable debate over MOG difficult. p>
That opinion must be weighter than RC scholars who have a more objective rational view of him, nor will that explanation do, since the 1520 quote (see here ) you enlist was during the same period that he refused to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521.
No bragging, but I learned that as an elementary school kid.
What pre-VCII Catholic scholars have had this “more objective rational view” of Luther?
Chapter 9 of the Apocalypse opens with Saint John’s terrifying vision:
“And the fifth Angel sounded the trumpet; and I saw a star fall from Heaven upon the earth, and to him was given the key to the bottomless pit.
“And he opened the bottomless pit: and the smoke of the pit ascended as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun was darkened, and the air with the smoke of the pit:
“And from the smoke of the pit, there came out locusts upon the earth, and power was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have power.” (Apoc: 9:1-3)
Devout Catholic Scriptural commentators for the past 500 years have seen in this vision a prediction of Luther and his Protestant Revolt.
Father Herman Bernard Kramer, in The Book of Destiny, explains, “Luther did truly open the pit and let loose against the Church all the fury of hell. Therefore modern interpreters almost universally see in this fallen star, Luther.”[1] Father Kramer references the eminent Scriptural commentator, Cornelius a Lapide as making this point.[2]
“The whole description of the locusts”, Father Kramer explains, “fits down to the last detail the kings and princes who established by force the heresy of the 16th Century.” He continues:
“When Luther propounded his heretical and immoral doctrine, the sky became as it were obscured by smoke. It spread very rapidly over some regions of the earth, and it brought forth princes and kings who were eager to despoil the Church of her possessions. They compelled the people of their domains and in the territories robbed from the Church to accept the doctrines of Luther. The proponents of Protestantism made false translations of the Bible and misled the people into their errors by apparently proving from the ‘Bible’ (their own translations) the correctness of their doctrines. It was all deceit, lying and hypocrisy. Bad and weak, lax and lukewarm, indifferent and non-practicing Catholics and those who had neglected to get thorough instruction were thus misled; and these, seeing the Catholic Church now through this smoke of error from the abyss and beholding a distorted caricature of the true Church, began both to fear and hate her.”[3]
As for Luther, he did “everything to instill hatred of the [Catholic] Church into the hearts of his followers.”[4] Father Kramer explains:
“The princes of Germany eagerly took up Lutheranism to become the spiritual heads of the churches in their domains and to plunder the Church. Their assumed jurisdiction in spiritual matters was usurpation ... In Den-mark, Norway and Sweden the Kings imposed Lutheranism upon the people by the power of the sword and by lying, deceit and hypocrisy. They left the altars in the churches and had apostate priests use vestments and external trappings of the Catholic Church to mislead the people. They crushed out the Catholic faith by terrorism, by making it a felony and treason to remain a Catholic. Each monarch made himself the spiritual head of the church in his kingdom. They had so-called historians falsify history to arouse hatred against the Church in the hearts of the people. They pretended to prove the truth of Lutheranism by false translations of the Bible made by Luther and by others and by still falser interpretations of it. Those princes and kings were the locusts appearing in the vision of St. John. They had the teeth of lions to terrify lukewarm Catholics into submission.”[5]
The Haydock Commentary of the Douay Rheims contains a similar explanation of Apocalypse 9:2:
“Luther and his followers propagated and de-fended their new doctrines with such heat and violence as to occasion everywhere seditions and insurrections which they seemed to glory in. Luther openly boasted of it. ‘You complain,’ said he, ‘that by our gospel the world is become more tumultuous; I answer, God be thanked for it; these things I would have so to be, and woe to me if such things were not’.”[6]
The Commentary further explains that indeed the sun was darkened since the light of faith was darkened by the widespread heresy of Protestantism. The revered Redemptorist Father Michael Müller elucidates how these Protestant “re-forms” snuffed out the light of true Faith:
“... they dissected the Catholic faith till they reduced it to a mere skeleton; they lopped off the reality of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the divine Christian sacrifice offered in the Mass, confession of sins, most of the sacraments, penitential exercises, several of the canonical books of Scripture, the invocations of saints, celibacy, most of the General Councils of the Church, and all present Church authority; they perverted the nature of jurisdiction, asserting that faith alone justifies man; they made God the author of sin, and maintained the observance of the commandments to be impossible.”[7]
Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, rightly observed that Martin Luther’s alleged Reformation of the Church “consisted in an effort to have people abandon the Catholic Faith, and relinquish their membership in the one true Church militant of the New Testament, so as to follow his teaching and enter into his organization.”[8]
This is what the Lutheran revolt was, the tearing away of millions of souls from the one true Church of Christ, and probable consignment of millions to eternal hellfire. The Protestant revolt is nothing to celebrate!
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/5ae7de14f0fb304f7bb78d6243389368-91.html
The Cathoics’ leadership is Jesus Christ, Our Sovereign King.
All other “Christian religions” were founded by mortal men.
"We have to be careful not to be saying that Jesus had 2 natures, one divine and one human. It leads very easily into some of the gnostic misunderstandings. Jesus is and always will be the unique union of the divine and the human."
I understand our protestant urge to prevent Mary from being worshipped, but I really have no problem with her carrying from the moment of conception both the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ."
ALL religious systems were founded by men, Catholicism included.
Jesus came to reconcile men to Himself, not start a new religious system.
He had already established a religious system under the Law and that didn’t work. No new one would either because righteousness does not come by the Law but by having it imputed, or credited to our account by God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Born again believers are His Bride. An organization is not His bride.
Do you go to a church on Sundays? If so, which flavor?
If you do not, I can understand that also.
Wrong: Inferring that i was one of those (why mention them unless it applies to me?) who were "warned by others they are starting down the path of heresy" by rejecting MOG, and thus "as an alternative you seem to suggest using the Greek word Theotokos" is inferring that alleged fear was my motive. Yet i have made clear that rejecting the Mother of Deity aspect due to what its misleading denotation does not equate to heresy, but instead Caths are often guilty of that in the totality of their contextual usage of MOG. .
In addition, A criticizing me as one who should have paid attention and cared about the drift towards heresy is saying i not only did not pay attention but did not care, the latter of which means you know my motive for lack of attention.
But my motive remarks were only an aside in response to your resorting to such.
I understand our protestant urge to prevent Mary from being worshipped, but I really have no problem with her carrying from the moment of conception both the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ."
Yes, I do have an "urge" to prevent Mary from being worshiped, even if you seem to denigrate that, and does not equate to having a problem with her carrying from the moment of conception both the divine and the human in the person of Jesus Christ.
There is no "either or" here, which is a false dilemma, one which is a false argument and simply more sophistry, which dissuades further attempts at reasonable exchange.
It appears that logic ain’t their strong suit.
Hmmmmph!
That just ain't CHRISTIAN!
Oh...
Wait...
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.