Condemning Nectorianism & defending the title Mother of God.

[Veritas41]

Hi Veritas41,

You last post (#78) inspired me to bow back in.

By calling me inconsistent, you seem to be saying that my agreeing with the use of some unbiblical terms requires that I go along with ALL unbiblical terms.
I reject that requirement as both illogical and unbiblical.

Well, at least I can inspire somebody to do something! I’m not saying you have to go along with all terms not found in the Bible. It seemed to me (maybe I have misunderstood) that you reject the title “Mother of God” for Mary because it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible, which seemed to me your definition of “unbiblical” – not specifically mentioned in the Bible (at least that’s the meaning alot of Protestants have for the word). I guess what we need to do is define “unbiblical” – does that mean something that doesn’t appear in the Bible or *contradicts *the Bible? My definition of unbiblical is that something *contradicts *the Bible (because God can’t contradict Himself), but I don’t think that just because something isn’t in the Bible means that it automatically contradicts the Bible or isn’t true.

When I was Protestant, I believed that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (and I still believe that as a Catholic) – but this is taught nowhere in the Bible. Is this an “unbiblical” teaching? (in your definition)

How about the titles for the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The manuscripts of the Gospels weren’t originally titled – we know who authored the different Gospels through Tradition, not through Scripture. Are the titles of the Gospels, which are in our Bibles, “unbiblical” since they don’t actually occur in the original text?

 

[Zooey]

I highlighted in red what I think underlies our disagreement – how we are made righteous in Christ. You hold the classic Protestant view of extrinsic justification, where the believer is covered over with the righteousness of Christ while remaining objectively sinful. **Catholic, biblical, teaching is otherwise: we are made objectively righteous and holy by God’s grace – there is no cover-up job. "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." (2 Peter 1:3-4)

I love this part…This is, by the way, what John Wesley taught, & it is one of the things that got him in trouble with the Church of England. (Indeed, many of his fellow CofE clerics accused him of “trying to bring Catholicism back into the English church”!)
We aren’t:nope: just “covered up” with His righteousness; that righteousness actually works a:yup: transformation in us," that we might be:dancing: called the children of God".

 

[brkn1]

I’m OK with unbiblical terms such as the “Trinity” since the doctrine represented by that term is well supported by Scripture.

I looked up different terms for The Virgin Mary in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I found an article about the “Litany of Loreto”. It describes how the RCC had its share of problems with the use of non-biblical terms for Mary. Read the part about St. Pius V in 1571 etc.

I also looked up the Ark of the Covenant where, under the Catholic Traditions section, St. Thomas Aquinas points to the Ark as being “one of the purest and richest symbols” of the Lord Jesus Christ. I agree.
It bothered me to then read at the last part of the article: "In like manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the “Ark of the Covenant”.

That “might be very well regarded” declaration is a great example of why I don’t readily accept non-biblical terms and inventions.
The suggestion that the Blessed Virgin has a place in the Holy of Holies in God’s Temple in Heaven has some worrisome connotations to it. To me, it suggests a Divine attribute to Mary that rightfully only belongs to God, although I know that you will strongly and rightfully deny this. I’m not saying that the RCC attributes divinity to Mary here, but I still see how it could be taken that way by the uninitiated and that is why I am pointing it out as an example why we must be very careful with non-biblical terms.

 

[Victorious]

I’m not saying that the RCC attributes divinity to Mary here, but I still see how it could be taken that way by the uninitiated and that is why I am pointing it out as an example why we must be very careful with non-biblical terms.

Maybe the uninitiated need to recognize their status as “uninitiateds” and take the trouble to learn the truth instead of leaping to unwarranted conclusions.

Part of the problem with private judgment is that it tends to rule out humility.

 

[Veritas41]

I’m OK with unbiblical terms such as the “Trinity” since the doctrine represented by that term is well supported by Scripture.

I looked up different terms for The Virgin Mary in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I found an article about the “Litany of Loreto”. It describes how the RCC had its share of problems with the use of non-biblical terms for Mary. Read the part about St. Pius V in 1571 etc.

I also looked up the Ark of the Covenant where, under the Catholic Traditions section, St. Thomas Aquinas points to the Ark as being “one of the purest and richest symbols” of the Lord Jesus Christ. I agree.
It bothered me to then read at the last part of the article: "In like manner the Ark might be very well regarded as a mystical figure of the Blessed Virgin, called by the Church the “Ark of the Covenant”.

That “might be very well regarded” declaration is a great example of why I don’t readily accept non-biblical terms and inventions.
The suggestion that the Blessed Virgin has a place in the Holy of Holies in God’s Temple in Heaven has some worrisome connotations to it. To me, it suggests a Divine attribute to Mary that rightfully only belongs to God, although I know that you will strongly and rightfully deny this. I’m not saying that the RCC attributes divinity to Mary here, but I still see how it could be taken that way by the uninitiated and that is why I am pointing it out as an example why we must be very careful with non-biblical terms.

The High Priest was allowed into the Holy of Holies once a year to make atonement for the people of Israel – being in the Holy of Holies doesn’t imply divinity.

As far as Mary being the ark of the New Covenant, read the article in the link below about the biblical evidence and the understanding of the early Church Fathers on Mary as the ark of the NewCovenant. catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=6811

 

[elgom]

Hi, I just wanted to add a new thought. In John’s Gospel Jesus is the “Word made flesh”. If the Word (Jesus) is flesh, then that means that God and flesh are one. If God and flesh are one united in the womb of Mary then she is truly the “Mother of God”. I hope that helps.

All for the Honor and Glory of God.