Mary, the Mother of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Way
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
agiosotheos said:
That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. You make it sound as if we believe in Patriarchal supremacy. Not only is Bartholomew not my Patriarch, but even if he was, opposition to one’s bishop if he is teaching error is very much part of the EO/OO tradition.
Click to expand...
No. The laity is always obedient to their leaders.

St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks on it. Let me quote you some of his writings:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

**See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.**

This have nothing to with supremacy. This is a lot to do with obedience to your Church Leaders.
 
agiosotheos said:
Now, elvisman did that when he started throwing a tantrum because someone wish to call your church the “Roman church” rather than the “Catholic Church”.

Which councils have condemned occupants of Rome as heretics? The Third Council of Ephesus condemned Leo I. The Second Council of Constantinople was close to condemning Vigilius who took 8-9 years of imprisonment to finally give up his support for the Three Chapters. The Third Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius. The Fourth Council of Constantinople condemned the filioque, which the Roman church later adopted. Leo III condemned the filioque in a concrete fashion by engraving the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in silver. The Fifth Council of Constantinople contradicted the views expressed in the Summa by saying that the light of Tabor was the uncreated Energies of God and that the Essence of God could not by in any way perceived (the Summa teaches that the light of Tabor was a creation, just like any such manifestations of God in this life, and that the Essence of God is seen in the beatific vision). The Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem further condemned the filioque. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned papal supremacy.
Click to expand...
It is papal infallbility not supremacy. Second that is not heresy, that is explicit in Matthew 16:18, and Peter being the holder of the Keys holds primacy. While the rest of the bishops do not. I could continue on with this, but it is apparent I am feeding a TROLL. So it is best you MAKE A NEW THREAD. Since YOU ALREADY DERAILED THIS TOPIC!
 
agiosotheos said:
You are denying that Benedict XVI occupies the See of Rome?
It is not “the Church”.
I don’t know what “history” and “writings” you are talking about. You are making the original, substantial, and positive claim, namely that the conglomeration of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the Church established by Christ. The one making the original, positive, and substantial claim is the one who is bound to first try and prove it. You have, in result, claimed that history and the Fathers are on your side. But you have not cited sources substantiating this claim. As such, the burden of proof is still resting upon you.
Click to expand...
Ummm, gee . . . where to begin?? READ and WEEP:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).
You [the church in Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
**When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 A.D. 200])
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church at Rome, in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 A.D. 252]).
Optatus
**In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
 
Roman_Catholic said:
  • Christ being God is in the Scriptures.
  • Mary being Christ’s mother is in the Scriptures.
  • Therefore Mary being the mother of God (Christ) is Biblical.
Unless of course you believe one of two things.
  1. Christ is not God; or
  2. Mary is not Christ’s mother.
People tend to look at the phrase,* ‘Mother of God’* in the wrong light. It is a statement about Who Christ is.

God bless
Click to expand...
So, let me see if I understand your logic:

If Mary is the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God.
Hmm
If the Father is God, and Mary is the Mother of God (Established in the previous statement), then Mary is the Mother of the Father. (Oh my)

If the Holy Spirit is God, and Mary is the Mother of God, then Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit. (Oh my)

So Mary is the Mother of the Full Trinity if such logic is used.

Sounds confusing.
 
rbarcia said:
So, let me see if I understand your logic:

If Mary is the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God.
Hmm
If the Father is God, and Mary is the Mother of God (Established in the previous statement), then Mary is the Mother of the Father. (Oh my)

If the Holy Spirit is God, and Mary is the Mother of God, then Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit. (Oh my)

So Mary is the Mother of the Full Trinity if such logic is used.

Sounds confusing.
Click to expand...
WRONG**. It couldn’t be any clearer:**
The** Fathe**r is God (1st Person)**
Jesus is God (2nd Person)**
**The Holy Spirit is God (****3rd **Person)
Mary is the mother of the 2nd Person in the Trinity – Jesus, who is God.
She is the Mother of God – not the Trinity.
She was declared to be Theotokos (God Bearer) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.
That council also defined the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union – Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man.
At the time, the Nestorian Heresy, held that Jesus was man and was merely a “Temple” of God. the council defeated nestorious and excommunicated him for his heresy and declared the Hypostatic Union of Jesus – that he*** FULLY***** united to himself 2 natures – God and Man.**
Ergo – Mary is the mother of God. If you don’t believe that – you fall into the Nestorian Heresy, my confused friend.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
No. The laity is always obedient to their leaders.

St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks on it. Let me quote you some of his writings:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

This have nothing to with supremacy. This is a lot to do with obedience to your Church Leaders.
Click to expand...
Mark of Ephesus’ disobedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople (who he was normally responsible to) is evidence that you are misinterpreting the place of these quotations in EOy.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
It is papal infallbility not supremacy. Second that is not heresy, that is explicit in Matthew 16:18, and Peter being the holder of the Keys holds primacy. While the rest of the bishops do not. I could continue on with this, but it is apparent I am feeding a TROLL. So it is best you MAKE A NEW THREAD. Since YOU ALREADY DERAILED THIS TOPIC!
Click to expand...
You just avoided all of my instances of showing where the teachings of Rome had been synodically condemned. I listed near a dozen.
 
elvisman said:
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 A.D. 110]).
Click to expand...
That is not sufficient, because it simply upholds the Catholic Church, which could very well be the EOC or the OOC rather than the Roman communion. The fact that you think citing something that simply says “Catholic Church” without showing that by that they necessarily mean what is today the conglomeration of those in communion with the See of Rome just goes to show how naive you are.
elvisman said:
You [the church in Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 A.D. 110]).
Click to expand...
That only indicates that Ignatius upheld what the Church of Rome had so far taught, not that he would uphold what it would teach in all times.
elvisman said:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (*The Martyrdom of Polycarp *8 A.D. 110]).
Click to expand...
You did it again. This is getting old. I don’t see why you don’t realize that the phrase “Catholic Church” may not always be speaking of the Roman communion.
elvisman said:
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).
Click to expand...
I recognize that the Catholic Church has held the universal faith, but not that the Roman communion is the Catholic Church that is being spoken of.
elvisman said:
Tertullian
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 A.D. 200])
Click to expand...
This harms your case more than anything. He clearly distinguishes between the Catholic Church and the Church of Rome, and identifies that they were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but only that they subsisted in the Church of Rome.
elvisman said:
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church at Rome, in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 A.D. 252]).
Click to expand...
Yes, Rome is one of the Sees of Peter. Yes, it was at the point the principal See. What is your point in establishing this? That does not mean that Rome is supreme, that it is infallible, that it still is the principle See, or that it is part of the Catholic Church.
elvisman said:
Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa **A.D. 367]).
Click to expand...
Rome was the mark of unity and any who would have set up against it at the time would have been schismatic. This is no longer the case because Rome has fallen into heresy since then.
 
rbarcia said:
If the Father is God, and Mary is the Mother of God (Established in the previous statement), then Mary is the Mother of the Father. (Oh my)

If the Holy Spirit is God, and Mary is the Mother of God, then Mary is the Mother of the Holy Spirit. (Oh my)

So Mary is the Mother of the Full Trinity if such logic is used.

Sounds confusing.
Click to expand...
This sounds Sabellian.
 
elvisman said:
She is the Mother of God – not the Trinity.
Click to expand...
This is really dangerous language to be using. God is the Trinity and the Trinity is God. It would have been ok if you had said that “Mary is the Mother of God the Word, not the Trinity.”
elvisman said:
She was declared to be Theotokos (God Bearer) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.
Click to expand...
Theotokos actually means Birth-Giver of God. Theophoros means God-Bearer.
 
elvisman said:
Name the Heresy.
Click to expand...
I already addressed this in a post to Manny:
agiosotheos said:
Which councils have condemned occupants of Rome as heretics? The Third Council of Ephesus condemned Leo I. The Second Council of Constantinople was close to condemning Vigilius who took 8-9 years of imprisonment to finally give up his support for the Three Chapters. The Third Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius. The Fourth Council of Constantinople condemned the filioque, which the Roman church later adopted. Leo III condemned the filioque in a concrete fashion by engraving the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in silver. The Fifth Council of Constantinople contradicted the views expressed in the Summa by saying that the light of Tabor was the uncreated Energies of God and that the Essence of God could not by in any way perceived (the Summa teaches that the light of Tabor was a creation, just like any such manifestations of God in this life, and that the Essence of God is seen in the beatific vision). The Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem further condemned the filioque. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned papal supremacy.
Click to expand...
 
agiosotheos said:
This is really dangerous language to be using. God is the Trinity and the Trinity is God. It would have been ok if you had said that “Mary is the Mother of God the Word, not the Trinity.”
She is the mother of God.

Theotokos actually means Birth-Giver of God. Theophoros means God-Bearer.
Click to expand...
Your silly nit-picking aside - Theotokos means God-bearer, as does Theophoros. St. Ignatius was known as “Theophoros”.**

**The difference is, Theotokos is much more significant and intimate. **
It is broken down as follows:
The prefix “Theo” means God and the word “tokos” means “carrier or bearer in the womb” (birth mother). Tokos can only refer to a birth mother.

Therefore - Mary is the birth mother of God.
 
agiosotheos said:
Mark of Ephesus’ disobedience to the Patriarch of Constantinople (who he was normally responsible to) is evidence that you are misinterpreting the place of these quotations in EOy.
Click to expand...
What main point did I said to you in my previous message? If you wish to discuss about Catholicism and Oriental Churches, and your issues with it. I SUGGEST that you make a BLOODY NEWLY THREAD BECAUSE THIS BLOODY DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY, THE MOTHER OF GOD!
 
elvisman said:
Oh - I thought you were going to name REAL heresies - not would-be heresies from non-authoritative sources.

Still waiting . . .
Click to expand...
Please do not DERAIL the this thread. You and agiosotheos have derail this thread into a different topic, and dragged me into it.
 
elvisman said:
Your silly nit-picking aside - Theotokos means* God-bearer*, as does Theophoros. St. Ignatius was known as “Theophoros”.

The difference is, Theotokos is much more significant and intimate.
It is broken down as follows:
The prefix "Theo" means God and the word “tokos” means “carrier or bearer in the womb” (birth mother). Tokos can only refer to a birth mother.

Therefore - Mary is the birth mother of God.
Click to expand...
That’s what I just said. tokos means birth-giver, not simply bearer.
 
agiosotheos said:
What is a truly authoritative source to you?
Click to expand...
An interesting notion to be sure. By whose authority do we do these things?

We seem to be confused about authenticity and verity. i.e. The words of Satan in the Garden of Eden: “You shall not surely die but will become like gods…”, are certainly authentic, but they are surely false.

Why do we take ancient words and phrases coined by “holy” men, and quote them out of context, outside the whole counsel of God? We then build dogmas/anathamas on unneccessary inference and papal/patriarchal bulls.

It still boils to one question: Who has the keys? Joseph Smith Jr., founder of LDS,(Mormons),said God gave him the keys in A.D. 183X something. Joseph Smith has millions of followers, worldwide. They say they are Christians–that all others have apostasized. That has to be true or false. Who/what decides? Most of the “Christian” world cannot decide who really has the keys.

Now what?

The above pertains to the subject: theotokos–is a coined word from antiquity.
However, this probably belongs on a different thread–perhaps: Two Streams of Scripture

Sorry.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

Where will we be in 2109?

Peace,

James Least
 
elvisman said:
WRONG**. It couldn’t be any** clearer:
The** Fathe**r is God (1st Person)**
Jesus is God (2nd Person)**
**The Holy Spirit is God (****3rd **Person)
Mary is the mother of the 2nd Person in the Trinity – Jesus, who is God.
She is the Mother of God – not the Trinity.
She was declared to be Theotokos (God Bearer) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.
That council also defined the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union – Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man.
At the time, the Nestorian Heresy, held that Jesus was man and was merely a “Temple” of God. the council defeated nestorious and excommunicated him for his heresy and declared the Hypostatic Union of Jesus – that he*** FULLY***** united to himself 2 natures – God and** Man.
Ergo – Mary is the mother of God. If you don’t believe that – you fall into the Nestorian Heresy, my confused friend.
Click to expand...
I see, so even though Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God, and God is the Father, Mary is not the Mother of the Father.

And if do not believe in the Title “Mother of God”, then I am accusing Jesus of just being a temple…How logic like this does not sound confusing is beyond me. How we made the leap into a title is essential to the nature of Jesus is way beyond my intelligence. Sounds like you need a Doctorate in the theology of tongue linguistics. and fuzzy logic.

I am glad the Gospel is much simpler to understand and I do not need all this.

1 Cor 1

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top