Former Catholics - Mary worship

  • Thread starter Thread starter adf417
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
marywarfield said:
What a great site! Thank you. And yes very anti catholic
but isn’t that how we learn?

I see them putting enormous effort into detailed
explanations sat to the wrongness of Marian attributes.

The most interesting though is whenever they explain
how Mary cannot be the Mother of God
they end up in Nestorianism every time although
they also seem to want to condemn him.

So I ask you- Is Nestorian thinking on the body/nature
composite consistently found in Protestantism? I really
don’t know.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I really didn’t want you to go there on my account-enough that I can be offensive. I just had to reread the theotokus part and actually I don’t see any declaration of what they think is right (one or two persons of Christ etc) and don’t come off as “Nestorian”. Actually they come to same conclusion as I do. They found it to be a translation problem, even in the Latin, and hence could be misleading to some. I overlooked the comments on worship/veneration of Mary they alledge , and concerned myself just with “theotokus”. I have never encountered any Nestorian Christological thought in any Christian. Actually am not sure what he taught other than he preferred chistolokus-“christ bearer” which is correct but problematic also for now you must know the Messiah was to be divine also. If he taught the two natures (God and man) never crossed/intertwined that would be wrong…To be honest I don’t think most people think about Christ’s nature beyond that He is both fully God and Man …I am getting a headache reading about hypostatsis and this and that, and now this:…" Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, condemned Nestorius’ works by issuing twelve anathemas against him. Nestorius responded in kind. The two men were harsh individuals and fierce antagonists. There was no chance of reconciliation. Emperor Theodosius II called a council at Ephesus to settle the question. Working quickly, Cyril and his allies deposed Nestorius before his Syrian supporters could reach the council site. Rome backed Cyril’s move and Nestorius was stripped of his position and exiled. Theologians who study Nestorius’ writings today say that his opinions were misrepresented and probably were not heretical" ??? christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/301-600/the-nestorian-controversy-11629695.html have not read it all.
 
More food for thought for any marathoners on this subject— " Summary
Nestorius spoke of Christ as one person (prosopon) in two natures (physis), human and divine.
The Monophysites spoke of him as one person (hypostasis) and one nature (physis), both God and man.
Chalcedon referred to Christ as one person (hypostasis) in two natures (physis), in essence a compromise between the Nestorian and Monophysite positions.
The Nestorian bishops, in a statement drawn up in 612, stated: “There is a wonderful connection and indissoluble union between [Christ’s] human nature, which was assumed, and God the Word who assumed it, a union existing from the first moment of conception. This teaches us to recognize only one Person (parsopa), our Saviour Jesus Christ, Son of God, begotten in the nature of his Godhead by the Father before all ages, without beginning, and born finally in the nature of his Manhood of the holy Virgin, the daughter of David.” nestorian.org/nestorian_theology.html…Both Cyril and Nestorius were excommunicated !!!
 
benhur said:
Sorry, I really didn’t want you to go there on my account-enough that I can be offensive. I just had to reread the theotokus part and actually I don’t see any declaration of what they think is right (one or two persons of Christ etc) and don’t come off as “Nestorian”. Actually they come to same conclusion as I do. They found it to be a translation problem, even in the Latin, and hence could be misleading to some. I overlooked the comments on worship/veneration of Mary they alledge , and concerned myself just with “theotokus”. I have never encountered any Nestorian Christological thought in any Christian. Actually am not sure what he taught other than he preferred chistolokus-“christ bearer” which is correct but problematic also for now you must know the Messiah was to be divine also. If he taught the two natures (God and man) never crossed/intertwined that would be wrong…To be honest I don’t think most people think about Christ’s nature beyond that He is both fully God and Man …I am getting a headache reading about hypostatsis and this and that, and now this:…" Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, condemned Nestorius’ works by issuing twelve anathemas against him. Nestorius responded in kind. The two men were harsh individuals and fierce antagonists. There was no chance of reconciliation. Emperor Theodosius II called a council at Ephesus to settle the question. Working quickly, Cyril and his allies deposed Nestorius before his Syrian supporters could reach the council site. Rome backed Cyril’s move and Nestorius was stripped of his position and exiled. Theologians who study Nestorius’ writings today say that his opinions were misrepresented and probably were not heretical" ??? christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/301-600/the-nestorian-controversy-11629695.html have not read it all.
Click to expand...
I have also heard that Nestorius got a bum rap.
However I believe it is common for supporters of those
accused of heresy to state their hero got the short
end of the stick. Luther’s did and still do.

I was just reflecting how different our CAF forums are
from the days of Cyril. There are times I wish I
could issue 12 anathemas but that would probably
get me 60 infraction points. 😦
 
marywarfield said:
Good points .The last site gave quite a chronology that I believe, for I have seen similar stuff from Catholic historians, though on different subject . I mean the nitty gritty details, the politics that just seem so …well, not like what we want to think of our past spiritual leaders. and I do apply that to P’s and wonder about all our divisions. And not so much the division but the carnality that may accompany it.*
Click to expand...
 
marywarfield said:
I have also heard that Nestorius got a bum rap.
However I believe it is common for supporters of those
accused of heresy to state their hero got the short
end of the stick. Luther’s did and still do.

I was just reflecting how different our CAF forums are
from the days of Cyril. There are times I wish I
could issue 12 anathemas but that would probably
get me 60 infraction points. 😦
Click to expand...
In the spirit of the good old days of Cyril; Luther didn’t get the short end of the stick, he got the Gospel. You guys are stuck with the superstition ladder of merit, penances and popery. Anathema sit!

😃 ahem
 
Per_Crucem said:
In the spirit of the good old days of Cyril; Luther didn’t get the short end of the stick, he got the Gospel. You guys are stuck with the superstition ladder of merit, penances and popery. Anathema sit!

😃 ahem
Click to expand...
🍿
 
Per_Crucem said:
In the spirit of the good old days of Cyril; Luther didn’t get the short end of the stick, he got the Gospel. You guys are stuck with the superstition ladder of merit, penances and popery. Anathema sit!

😃 ahem
Click to expand...
By the way, that was all in good jest…ahem :whistle:
 
Per_Crucem said:
In the spirit of the good old days of Cyril; Luther didn’t get the short end of the stick, he got the Gospel. You guys are stuck with the superstition ladder of merit, penances and popery. Anathema sit!

😃 ahem
Click to expand...
Sit, Anathema, Sit!- Popery
Now roll over. -penance
Good dog. Merits- two milk bones.
 
Per_Crucem said:
In the spirit of the good old days of Cyril; Luther didn’t get the short end of the stick, he got the Gospel. You guys are stuck with the superstition ladder of merit, penances and popery. Anathema sit!

😃 ahem
Click to expand...
We mods are the only ones who can issue anathemas these days. But don’t feel threatened, we recieve them as well as get them.
:cool:
 
Ben Hur I found this for you. campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq2/yq315.html
Kollyridians or Collyridians were adorers of Mary in the fourth-century Arabia, as Epiphanius mentioned in his writing against heretics (see: Haer. 78, 23; 79). He coined the expression Collyridians which has the meaning of “cake-eater-sect.” Leontius of Byzance had a different name for them. He called them “Philomarianites,” meaning Mary-lovers (PG 87, 1364). The priestesses of this sect used to present Our Lady with cakes or a special kind of bread (kolluris) intended as offerings as was the custom in pre-Christian times. This sect, mainly consisting of women or at least led by woman priests, propagated what amounts to a Goddess cult regarding Our Lady. Epiphanius had this warning on their behalf: “Although Mary is the most beautiful and holy and worthy of praise, we don’t owe her adoration.” (Haer. 79, 7, PG 42, 752) In a different passage Epiphanius uses even stronger words: “Adoration must cease. For Mary is no goddess nor has she received her body from heaven. (oute gar theos hae Maria oute ap’ouranou exousa to soma)” (Haer. 78, 24). Collyridians are also known and mentioned by John Damascene (PG 94, 728).
 
marywarfield said:
Ben Hur I found this for you. campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq2/yq315.html
Kollyridians or Collyridians were adorers of Mary in the fourth-century Arabia, as Epiphanius mentioned in his writing against heretics (see: Haer. 78, 23; 79). He coined the expression Collyridians which has the meaning of “cake-eater-sect.” Leontius of Byzance had a different name for them. He called them “Philomarianites,” meaning Mary-lovers (PG 87, 1364). The priestesses of this sect used to present Our Lady with cakes or a special kind of bread (kolluris) intended as offerings as was the custom in pre-Christian times. This sect, mainly consisting of women or at least led by woman priests, propagated what amounts to a Goddess cult regarding Our Lady. Epiphanius had this warning on their behalf: “Although Mary is the most beautiful and holy and worthy of praise, we don’t owe her adoration.” (Haer. 79, 7, PG 42, 752) In a different passage Epiphanius uses even stronger words: “Adoration must cease. For Mary is no goddess nor has she received her body from heaven. (oute gar theos hae Maria oute ap’ouranou exousa to soma)” (Haer. 78, 24). Collyridians are also known and mentioned by John Damascene (PG 94, 728).
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
What exactly is “adoration”?

Because in every day language, you could say, “That baby/puppy is adorable!”

What feeling/intent/motive/emotion is required for adoration to be worship?

What’s the difference between singing a hymn to God versus, say, Hail Holy Queen?

The Protestant claim isn’t that Catholics believe Mary is a goddess. It’s the belief that whatever form of prayer/praise/kneeling is supposed to be to God alone so she is allegedly being treated as a goddess (or at least beyond a created being) in their eyes.
 
EIF5A said:
What exactly is “adoration”?

Because in every day language, you could say, “That baby/puppy is adorable!”

What feeling/intent/motive/emotion is required for adoration to be worship?

What’s the difference between singing a hymn to God versus, say, Hail Holy Queen?

The Protestant claim isn’t that Catholics believe Mary is a goddess. It’s the belief that whatever form of prayer/praise/kneeling is supposed to be to God alone so she is allegedly being treated as a goddess (or at least beyond a created being) in their eyes.
Click to expand...
Yes very confusing. But in Catholic terms adoration
begins with the intention of one’s heart and moves
to outward manifestation.
For instance people can attend Eucharistic Adoration
and be on their knees and saying the right prayers but in their heart they are thinking
about the blown head gasket in their car outside.
This as far as the Church is concerned not quite
adoration- body only lol.

Catholiculture.com says this:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC#2111) states: “Neither ‘sacred’ things nor deeds in themselves endear man to God but rather the intentions with which he plies or does them. Mere repeated religious gestures or words, bereft of interior values, are sham, even superstition.” God forbid we be one of those who give “lip service,” but that our hearts are far from what we say! To “adore” the Lord means more than just saying, “I adore You.” True adoration involves a docile heart, an assent to God’s sovereignty over our lives, a constant posture of humility before Him, and gifts of love offered in homage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Adoration is the acknowledgement of God as God, creator and savior, the Lord and master of everything that exists as infinite and merciful love.” (CCC #2096) “Adoration is homage of the spirit to the King of glory, respectful silence in the presence of the ever greater God.” (CCC #2628)

The Concise Dictionary of Theology2 defines adoration as “the highest reverence to be offered only to God, our creator, redeemer, and sanctifier who alone should be worshiped and glorified.” St. Thomas Aquinas3 stated: “Adoration is primarily an interior reverence for God expressing itself secondarily in bodily signs of humility: bending our knee (to express our weakness compared to God) and prostrating ourselves (to show that of ourselves we are nothing).” A Catholic Dictionary4 defines adoration thus: “Adoration is the word used to express those acts of divine worship which are directed to God only, and of which the characteristics are recognition of His perfection and omnipotence and our own complete dependence upon Him.”

This is why the Collyridians mentioned earlier were
condemned. Their intention was to adore Mary as a goddess.
 
EIF5A said:
What exactly is “adoration”?

Because in every day language, you could say, “That baby/puppy is adorable!”

What feeling/intent/motive/emotion is required for adoration to be worship?

What’s the difference between singing a hymn to God versus, say, Hail Holy Queen?

The Protestant claim isn’t that Catholics believe Mary is a goddess. It’s the belief that whatever form of prayer/praise/kneeling is supposed to be to God alone so she is allegedly being treated as a goddess (or at least beyond a created being) in their eyes.
Click to expand...
I remember as a child being instructed by our pastor that the word “adore” is something we do only to God.

He gave me the understanding that we adore God because He is the Creator and we are his creatures, and that without Him we can do nothing. God gives us everything that is good.

Our Blessed Mother is His creature also, though highly privileged. When I venerate Mary I am acknowledging her privileges, and that she had to exercise faith to keep and to grow in the grace that God gave her. I believe in all the privileges given to her, for our benefit.

When I ask Mary to intercede for me, I am asking a fellow member of the Body of Christ to pray for my intentions. I see her as my Mother in the order of grace. All the grace that is within her comes from the Trinity. She is nothing and she knows it, therein is her humility. She also grew in grace by her obedience to God’s will throughout her life.
 
Would Catholics say the type of reverence they give to Mary is similar of Buddhists to Buddha?

What are the differences? (Besides, we’re correct and they’re wrong)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top