How do Catholics explain 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26?

[mercygate]

Ah a voice of reason…correct
If one denies Mary is the Mother of God, whether he realizes it or not, he is denying the Incarnation.
church history shows that Mary’s title of Mother of God was not rejected until 492. In that year a bishop named Nestorius promoted the heresy that Jesus is two distinct persons, and that Mary is the mother of the human person only. In 413 the council of Ephesus CONDEMNED this heresy. It did not surface again in Christianity until after the Reformation. The Nestorian heresy shows that correct belief about Mary preserves correct belief about Jesus. Protestant unwillingness to acknowledge Mary as the Mother of God is a radical departure from Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. It also implies that Jesus is either not God, or that He is two persons, BOTH of which are heresy’s.

Once more for the record. Main line Protestant denominations do NOT reject this fundamental teaching of the Church. Clearly, many individuals reject it – mostly without even knowing where it came from or what it means. They are of the mind that if it’s about Mary, it must be wrong.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Once more for the record. Main line Protestant denominations do NOT reject this fundamental teaching of the Church. Clearly, many individuals reject it – mostly without even knowing where it came from or what it means. They are of the mind that if it’s about Mary, it must be wrong.

They are of the mind that if it’s about Mary, it must be wrong. Yep, mostly. That is except for the parts Mary played that made it possible to put Christmas gifts under the Christmas tree and get to all the rum-pa-pum-pum pageantry and pomp of caroling at church, kisses under the mistletoe, hohoho goodwill to man and all that other pagan holiday cheer.

James

 

[sola_scriptura]

Once more for the record. Main line Protestant denominations do NOT reject this fundamental teaching of the Church. Clearly, many individuals reject it – mostly without even knowing where it came from or what it means. They are of the mind that if it’s about Mary, it must be wrong.

this is simply an unnecessary doctrine. It’s not that Mary was not the mother of our Lord – of course she was. However, an entire theology built around this concept isn’t necessary to debunk the Nestorian heresy.

The idea that God has a mother is obviously problematic unless further clarified. God is infinite. He created Mary not the other way around. Jesus is Lord – He and God are one. However, we need to distinguish Mary’s role here. She was the mother of the man Jesus Christ. However, Christ Himself is also infinite.

Mary was the bondservant of the Lord. She even describes herself as such. Her role did perhaps transform to a queen mother role later (for instance at the wedding feast at Cana) – however, this was only a temporal role not a heavenly role (there was a disengagement between the temporal family of Jesus & His spiritual family). To think otherwise is IMO heresy.

To juxtapose Mary into a Christological role is clearly heretical. She is not and cannot be viewed as a co-mediator. She is not a valid advocate on behalf of Christians either before Jesus or God. We have only one mediator that we are commanded to pray to (Jesus Christ). Jesus also commanded us to pray directly to God as well.

Scripture shows believers praying for saints not venerating them under the illusion they may intercede for us. The format of saintly patronage is almost exactly the same as pagan patronage was in pre-Christian Rome. You had a god for every human endeavor, whether farming or fertility or what have you. It is exactly the same with their saints.

I’ll probably receive a demerit or get kicked off of here for making this link – but that’s fine. The truth is the truth.

 

[Arglaze]

If Mary was here with us as any other person I don’t think a Protestant Christian would have any problem asking her to intercede for them (unless they found out that she held doctrines that they do not believe in). Protestant Christians ask other living Christians to pray for them all the time. But, for whatever reason, the only person that Protestant Christians will talk to on the other side of the vail of death is Jesus Christ only. The Bible, however makes it very clear that Jesus is the Lord of both the living and the dead, we can ask anyone to intercede for us either on this side or that side of the veil of death; for all her living unto Him. And who among the Saints seems to be the greatest but the Virgin Mary for she is a saint because she gave birth to God Himself. She is more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim. What Biblical Christian would not want to have her intercession in their lives!

Most Holy Theotokos save us!

Sure, we ask our friends, our family, etc. to pray for us. God, however has prohibited many times the speaking to the dead.
The Holy Scriptures do not say that God takes dead people to heaven. That is the reason why the resurrection exists.

The 12 apostles, Joseph, Mary, are all sleeping in Christ under the ground awaiting the return of the Lord. Even Jesus when he died did not go back to heaven until after the resurrection.
So when we pray to Jesus, we’re not praying to someone sleeping, we’re speaking to someone alive, for speaking to the dead is not something that God aproves. The dead know nothing.

If when we die we go meet our Creator, shouldn’t we all hope to die right now? Don’t we yearn being with him?

When we die we go to the grave. When the Lord comes, the dead in Christ will be resurrected into glory and those alive will meet him in the air, and then we’ll go to Heaven. Christ’s death is all about giving us, who were condemned to die, resurrection and eternal life.

We don’t pray to the dead.

 

[Arglaze]

this is simply an unnecessary doctrine. It’s not that Mary was not the mother of our Lord – of course she was. However, an entire theology built around this concept isn’t necessary to debunk the Nestorian heresy.

The idea that God has a mother is obviously problematic unless further clarified. God is infinite. He created Mary not the other way around. Jesus is Lord – He and God are one. However, we need to distinguish Mary’s role here. She was the mother of the man Jesus Christ. However, Christ Himself is also infinite.

Mary was the bondservant of the Lord. She even describes herself as such. Her role did perhaps transform to a queen mother role later (for instance at the wedding feast at Cana) – however, this was only a temporal role not a heavenly role (there was a disengagement between the temporal family of Jesus & His spiritual family). To think otherwise is IMO heresy.

To juxtapose Mary into a Christological role is clearly heretical. She is not and cannot be viewed as a co-mediator. She is not a valid advocate on behalf of Christians either before Jesus or God. We have only one mediator that we are commanded to pray to (Jesus Christ). Jesus also commanded us to pray directly to God as well.

Scripture shows believers praying for saints not venerating them under the illusion they may intercede for us. The format of saintly patronage is almost exactly the same as pagan patronage was in pre-Christian Rome. You had a god for every human endeavor, whether farming or fertility or what have you. It is exactly the same with their saints.

I’ll probably receive a demerit or get kicked off of here for making this link – but that’s fine. The truth is the truth.

Don’t worry about getting kicked, I’ve said worst things, like Mary and Joseph were actually behaving like husband and wife.
But this is the first time I see someone explain this in such a clear light. However, regardless of this evidence given, only through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit can anyone see and be convicted of this truth.

 

[dan1el]

Just wanted to know how you can believe in the Marian dogmas of Catholicism without it interferring dramatically with the Scriptures?

I do not believe in Miriamism or however you want to put it, based on my study and disassembling of the false thought called the “Assumption of Mary”, which is supposedly spoken of in Rev 12, which, in REALITY, speaks of:

“Jerusalem which is above, and the mother of us all.” Gal 4:26

…and NOT Mary, the human who held Jesus in her womb.

"You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay andcrushed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were crushed all at the same time and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

The Mountain is:

“…Mount Zion and to the city of the Living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem…” Hebrews 12:22 + Gal 4:26

And, ofcourse, the rock cut from this Mountain, is Jesus Christ.

With all due respect to Mary, she was in ignorance/darkness to some degree, for which it was said to her in Luke 2:34,35 that the sword (Jesus) would pierce even her own soul, as the Word (sword) does, according to Hebrews 4:12.

Therefore, not Mary, but Jerusalem is our mother - and the dragon goes to make war against the “rest of her (Jerusalem’s) children” Rev 12:17

I do not believe Mary was sinless NOR “assumed into Heaven”, (although it wouldn’t be without precedent if it did occur.) If Mary were sinless, it would make God a liar, when He said through David,

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5

Speaking of the state of every human being.

But if you want to know who Jesus thought was the greatest born among women (aside from Himself), listen to what He says, not me:
“Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist!” Matthew 11:11

Not Mary.
Strange that it wasn’t Enoch or Elijah or Moses…
Maybe because John the Baptist was baptized in the Spirit at so young an age?

But what do I know? I’m still learning.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I do not believe in Miriamism
…

But what do I know? I’m still learning.

I think your final statement says it all. Humility is the best teacher.

And it should be humbling to recognize that the Apostolic Catholic Church has been around 2,000 years and has more in the deposit of faith than any single person in this modern age could ever learn in many lifetimes of study.

I follow the pedigree of The Catholic Church over private opinion any day of the week.

James

 

[dan1el]

This wouldn’t be the first time a person, or collection of persons, has misrepresented God or His Word - and for that matter, it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church’s first. I favor the very clear word over any person or collection of persons’ interpretations, as also Scripture mandates:

“Test all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1 Th 5:21

God bless you mightily with His grace, my holy brother. I love the Catholic assembly!

 

[Arglaze]

I think your final statement says it all. Humility is the best teacher.

And it should be humbling to recognize that the Apostolic Catholic Church has been around 2,000 years…

I follow the pedigree of The Catholic Church over private opinion any day of the week.

James

Once again, if we want to go by age, the Jewish church, who by the way, was also founded by Jesus, is waaaaayyyy older than the catholic church. They showed that age means nothing by crucifying the Lord, even when the Word of God clearly pointed at him as Messiah.
Age and name mean nothing to God, as 2000 years are like 2 days for Him.
What means something to God in Jesus’ words are those who hear the Word of God and do it. No church named, no title recognized, no age recognized.

 

[HamtramckSteve]

However, an entire theology built around this concept isn’t necessary to debunk the Nestorian heresy.
…

However, we need to distinguish Mary’s role here. She was the mother of the man Jesus Christ.

I think you should study exactly what the Nestorian heresy was all about, because I’m not sure you really understand what it was and why it matters.

You can’t say that Mary was the mother of the man. The correct terminology is mother of the person of Jesus.

If you really understood the issue, you wouldn’t be using sloppy language. The rest of your post does not correct the error in the opening sentences.

 

[maryj]

this is simply an unnecessary doctrine. It’s not that Mary was not the mother of our Lord – of course she was. However, an entire theology built around this concept isn’t necessary to debunk the Nestorian heresy.

The idea that God has a mother is obviously problematic unless further clarified. God is infinite. He created Mary not the other way around. Jesus is Lord – He and God are one. However, we need to distinguish Mary’s role here. She was the mother of the man Jesus Christ. However, Christ Himself is also infinite.

Mary was the bondservant of the Lord. She even describes herself as such. Her role did perhaps transform to a queen mother role later (for instance at the wedding feast at Cana) – however, this was only a temporal role not a heavenly role (there was a disengagement between the temporal family of Jesus & His spiritual family). To think otherwise is IMO heresy.

To juxtapose Mary into a Christological role is clearly heretical. She is not and cannot be viewed as a co-mediator. She is not a valid advocate on behalf of Christians either before Jesus or God. We have only one mediator that we are commanded to pray to (Jesus Christ). Jesus also commanded us to pray directly to God as well.

Scripture shows believers praying for saints not venerating them under the illusion they may intercede for us. The format of saintly patronage is almost exactly the same as pagan patronage was in pre-Christian Rome. You had a god for every human endeavor, whether farming or fertility or what have you. It is exactly the same with their saints.

I’ll probably receive a demerit or get kicked off of here for making this link – but that’s fine. The truth is the truth.

You are mistaken on so many levels here… but let’s start with the Communion of Saints. Do you recite the Apostles creed at your church?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I think you should study exactly what the Nestorian heresy was all about, because I’m not sure you really understand what it was and why it matters.

You can’t say that Mary was the mother of the man. The correct terminology is mother of the person of Jesus.

If you really understood the issue, you wouldn’t be using sloppy language. The rest of your post does not correct the error in the opening sentences.

I’m not ignoring the personhood of Jesus nor am I trying to assert that Christ exists as two persons. I understand that the divinity and personhood of Jesus are two characteristics of one divine person (true God & true man). However, I find nothing wrong with using man rather than person – what you call sloppy wording I call semantics and sophistry.

 

[East_and_West]

I’m not ignoring the personhood of Jesus nor am I trying to assert that Christ exists as two persons. I understand that the divinity and personhood of Jesus are two characteristics of one divine person (true God & true man). However, I find nothing wrong with using man rather than person – what you call sloppy wording I call semantics and sophistry.

Yes. We agree that you are engaging in sophistry.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
   There is no way you can get around it without falling into Nestorianism.

 

[sola_scriptura]

You are mistaken on so many levels here… but let’s start with the Communion of Saints. Do you recite the Apostles creed at your church?

I do agree with the idea of the communion of saints – however, I do not believe we are to venerate saints. First – all who die in Christ are saints, hence we cannot know the identity of all the saints. It’s not to say that the martyrs do not enjoy a special status, because they do. However, not an intercessory role. We pray for not to the saints. I also find nothing wrong with honoring Mary in liturgy – I simply object to venerating her & the idea that she can intercede for us before Christ. We are told that Christ is our one mediator – seems simple enough for me (but apparently not for the philosophical sophists).

Moreover, I object to the idea that Mary is a queen of heaven & frankly find it heretical. Mary is not the Ark, she is not the mediatrix of all graces, she is was not both the spouse of the Holy Spirit while also the temporal spouse of Joseph (the very idea teeters on blasphemy), and she was not the prototype for perfect love (Scripture clearly states Jesus is the prototype for perfect love).

 

[sola_scriptura]

Yes. We agree that you are engaging in sophistry.

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
   There is no way you can get around it without falling into Nestorianism.

Call it what you want – invent whatever fictitious doctrines you would like … it’s not my problem. Your simple exegesis is wholly unconvincing. Frankly – I’ve said previously that I don’t necessarily have a problem with this title; however, it can be misleading if not properly understood, hence I think it causes unnecessary confusion and should probably not be used.

Please explain how Mary could be the mother of an infinite God who created her (not the other way around)? Mary was the mother of the man (or person if you would like) Jesus. She was the bondservant of the Lord selected to birth Christ & prepared by being filled with grace. Nothing more nothing less. As I’ve also said honoring Mary in liturgy is fine – preaching that she is in hypostatic union with the Trinity is heresy.

 

[East_and_West]

Call it what you want – invent whatever fictitious doctrines you would like … it’s not my problem. Your simple exegesis is wholly unconvincing. Frankly – I’ve said previously that I don’t necessarily have a problem with this title; however, it can be misleading if not properly understood, hence I think it causes unnecessary confusion and should probably not be used.

Please explain how Mary could be the mother of an infinite God who created her (not the other way around)? Mary was the mother of the man (or person if you would like) Jesus. She was the bondservant of the Lord selected to birth Christ & prepared by being filled with grace. Nothing more nothing less. As I’ve also said honoring Mary in liturgy is fine – preaching that she is in hypostatic union with the Trinity is heresy.

Simple. Mary gave birth to Christ. That makes Mary his mother. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. The “logcial” (i use term lightly) acrobatics that you are performing are incredible. It is clear that you are not concerned with truth but with your own personal tastes. Such is dangerous my dear friend. I wish your concern was for the things of God and not the ideas of men. I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[maryj]

I do agree with the idea of the communion of saints – however, I do not believe we are to venerate saints. First – all who die in Christ are saints, hence we cannot know the identity of all the saints. It’s not to say that the martyrs do not enjoy a special status, because they do. However, not an intercessory role. We pray for not to the saints. I also find nothing wrong with honoring Mary in liturgy – I simply object to venerating her & the idea that she can intercede for us before Christ. We are told that Christ is our one mediator – seems simple enough for me (but apparently not for the philosophical sophists).

Moreover, I object to the idea that Mary is a queen of heaven & frankly find it heretical. Mary is not the Ark, she is not the mediatrix of all graces, she is was not both the spouse of the Holy Spirit while also the temporal spouse of Joseph (the very idea teeters on blasphemy), and she was not the prototype for perfect love (Scripture clearly states Jesus is the prototype for perfect love).

One thing at a time…so what idea do you agree with about the communion of saints?

 

[sola_scriptura]

One thing at a time…so what idea do you agree with about the communion of saints?

let me save some time – I’ve very aware of the RCC view of this concept. The communion of saints includes those both alive and dead – the physically dead saints are alive in Christ (in heaven). We collectively compromise the body of Christ. Up to here I agree – but I won’t follow the rabbit trail down the road to veneration or the idea of intercession. It’s improper, has pagan roots, and therefore it’s heretical.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Simple. Mary gave birth to Christ. That makes Mary his mother. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. The “logcial” (i use term lightly) acrobatics that you are performing are incredible. It is clear that you are not concerned with truth but with your own personal tastes. Such is dangerous my dear friend. I wish your concern was for the things of God and not the ideas of men. I will keep you in my prayers.

Oh come one… I’ve heard it all before. I’m the one being careful about the wording I use. Irenaeus blurts out the term New Eve and a new theology is born – now if that’s not “sloppy theology” I don’t know what is?

 

[East_and_West]

Oh come one… I’ve heard it all before. I’m the one being careful about the wording I use. Irenaeus blurts out the term New Eve and a new theology is born – now if that’s not “sloppy theology” I don’t know what is?

First, you haven’t addressed what I said. I suggest you try that.
As for St. Iranaeus, the Martyr and Apologist, you need to do some research. If you think St. Iraneaus just made up the New Eve theology, then you don’t understand him or the early Church. If you read the Early Church Fathers you will see that their attitude was one of intenese zeal to preserve the traditions handed down by the Apostles and to oppose novelty. Irnaeaus was not very far removed from those Apostles and I doubt that this man who chose to die for the faith would invent new doctrines.