Of course as I’ve said I have no objection to the idea of Mary as mother of God. I merely point out that it can be a misleading title if not accompanied by a proper explanation (and indeed it has been spun far beyond what the council of Ephesus dictated).
**Very good, I agree with you about the misleading title if not explained correctly. The problem I have with non catholics misunderstanding about Mary, is that they have been misinformed about her role in salvation as Mother of our Lord as St. Elizabeth states in Luke’s gospel. Ephesus is Ephesus combating the heretical view about Mary and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Similar to today’s heretical views from non catholics about Mary’s doctrinal belief’s in the Catholic church that have been defined since the council of Ephesus. **
Moreover, I also don’t have a problem with the doctrine of “real presence” (I do, however, find bizarre RCC attempts to explain how this occurs with philosophical sophism). I was a Methodist (which adheres to “real presence”) and became Presbyterian after our denomination adopted real presence (and rejected Calvin’s view). We adopted the Lutheran view (and entered into communion with the Lutherans).
**The ping pong effect as you just explained above is common when one is not confident or accepts the apostolic revelations about the mysteries of God. The Catholic church is not trying to explain the true presence away or exhausting the definition of the true presence, she is defining the true presence to a new age of people so as to understand what the Catholic church believes in the true presence these last 2000 years since Jesus himself instituted the Eucharist. **
If its any conciliation I find Calvin’s terminology (real “pneumatic” presence) almost as absurd as the RCC attempts to define real presence. I like the Methodist doctrine in this area – real presence & it’s a mystery how God does this … end of story.
**The problem with this understanding above; is that not all Methodist or Lutherans accept your true presence understanding. The true presence is accepted as symbolic. If you are one who can accept the great mystery of the true presence, then I would be careful to make sure that a valid consecration is made with a valid successor to the apostles (Bishop or Priest) is present during the consecration. Paul states as you know to the Corinthian Church to discern the bread as the body of Jesus, and the cup of blessing as the blood of Jesus less they be Judged for the body and blood of Jesus (1Cor.11:27…). **
Sorry if I sound a bit callous in my depiction of this – but honestly I can’t stand philosophical sophism. I like philosophy … studied all the same stuff anyone with a college degree studied; but to conflate it with theology is just folly to the umpteenth degree.
**Then I guess your education farseeds the following quotes about our founder who gave us this teaching, and the Catholic church continues to believe it and defend it even at the cost of many a Pope and saint not to mention the apostles about believing in the the true presence exactly how Jesus taught it. John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. **
God was around long before Aristotle. It’s funny – I read City of God by Augustine (my favorite RCC theologian – though I don’t always agree with him) and he thought Plato and Aristotle met each other (I think it was Ambrose who first dreamed up this idea). Obviously this was later debunked (and Augustine himself ultimately admitted it was a silly idea) – but to think Catholics have a monopoly on the truth is sheer folly & frankly it’s the reason why your theology is drifting into no mans land.
**Catholic’s dont believe we have a monopoly on Truth, Catholics believe that we have been given the full deposit of faith handed down to us through the Magesterium from Jesus himself, the apostles and early church fathers. The reason Catholics have truth, is because we have the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ present to us in his Holy Eucharist and Jesus is Truth. It is not a matter of thinking, it is a matter of faith and belief. Funny how the Catholic theology has survived 2000 years and yet you have changed doctrines of theology from different denominations in your own lifetime. Guarantee if you try Jesus in the Catholic faith, you will never leave again. **
Look if you guys were to say the councils are the only official doctrine in the church – I would say right on, since I agree with at least the first four councils. The fifth that condemned Origen was convened by Justinian (and the Pope objected to it) so I still scratch my head & wonder if Origen is still considered a heretic or not (since I’ve spoken to some Catholics who disagree with this council). The Seventh Council (that restored veneration of icons) I obviously disagree with – however, this council reversed an earlier council (the Council of Hieria) so I simply think that council was invalid.
The Catholic church counciled to defeat heresies and heretics infecting the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in the body of Jesus Christ on earth. Not to invent new ones. They also counciled to define what has already been believed and handed down to us from the apostles to the different thinking (philosophies), worldly wisdom and ages. As much as I love St. Augustine and how I love Origen’s deep thoughts, I have the same reservations as you do, all though Origen’s to my understanding was never officially a heretic, I believe he was border line heretic because he teachings were so deep and required much study for them to become authentic apostolic agreement teachings, thus the question arises. Good news is that he was not officially a heretic, and John Paul the Great used some of his teachings in his Encyclicals.
Moreover, with regard to the Council of Ephesus, the term Theotokos actually means “God bearer” (not mother of God). Not that there’s any significant difference – but I’d thought I’d mention it.
opWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?nativi04.wav=nativity’)) Pronunciation:
sorry.