mother of God question?

[Huguenot]

From the Nicene Creed:
Who for us and for our salvation (I Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from the heavens ((John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition tells us that Jesus, the Word made flesh, was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Jesus came into this world through the womb of His mother, Mary. That is where the language of Mary being a bridge between heaven and earth comes from.

Hope I cleared that up for y’all!

Yes, you’ve cleared it up, but can we really say that “Jesus was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary” ? or "by the Holy Spirit IN the Virgin Mary " ?

 

[Mickey]

Huguenot:

I have no problem in asking fellow-Christians who are “with me” ( on this earth ) to intercede on my behalf, nor have I any problems in praying for others …
but asking somebody who is in Heaven to do so, for me , yes, it seems to interfere with the fact that Christ in the only Mediator…
With fellow -Christians who are “here” we can talk the matter over first, we can have a discussion, with those who are in Heaven…if they want to pray for us ( but I don’t even know if they do … apart from Jesus, because somewhere in the New Testament we are told he intercedes for us … ), I would say it’s up to them, but I don’t feel the right to “contact” them …
Same for angels …I don’t “contact” them either …

So often I hear non-Catholics say that dead people cannot pray for us. I can only chuckle when I hear this. The angels and saints are more alive than us–they are alive in Christ! They are surely praying for us.

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

Yes, you’ve cleared it up, but can we really say that “Jesus was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary” ? or "by the Holy Spirit IN the Virgin Mary " ?

It must be OF the Virgin Mary in order to preserve the absolute clarity of language required when indicating that Jesus is true God and true man. The statement “conceived in the Virgin Mary” would imply that Jesus was a divine entity who somehow passed through his mother, not necessarily taking on humanity in the process.

And the Virgin Mary? Then you imply a separation of the two natures; Christian orthodoxy maintains that Jesus is ONE person in two natures, which though distinct natures, are not separat-ed.

The questions you ask point out the most important thing about all dogmas concerning the Blessed Virgin: all of them refer to some point which touches upon the Incarnation.

 

[Mickey]

Huguenot:

Yes, you’ve cleared it up, but can we really say that “Jesus was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary” ? or "by the Holy Spirit IN the Virgin Mary " ?

Well, I suppose it depends on whether you reject the legitimacy of the Coucil of Nicea. However, it surely cannot be denied that the Virgin Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Huguenot]

Mickey:

So often I hear non-Catholics say that dead people cannot pray for us. I can only chuckle when I hear this. The angels and saints are more alive than us–they are alive in Christ! They are surely praying for us.

I don’t know if they can pray for us, you say “they are surely praying for us”, it is a deduction, you aren’t sure either .
I don’t say they don’t pray for us, maybe they do, but in a way it is not “our” problem : what I say is that I address my prayers only to God, I don’t think we should pray the saints who are in Heaven even if they decide to pray for us …( it’s their choice then )

 

[Huguenot]

Mickey:

Well, I suppose it depends on whether you reject the legitimacy of the Coucil of Nicea. However, it surely cannot be denied that the Virgin Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit.

I’ve never asked myself the question about the council of Nicea ; in my church we are “sola scriptura”, if what any council says correponds to what the Scriptures say it’s OK, if it doesn’t well…we don’t “buy” it …
we can agree partially with what a council or Benedict XVI says, I don’t reject everything in the Catholic Church, but agreeing on some points will not mean that I agree with everything, it’s the same with councils …
In fact for us the question is not even put in these terms …

 

[mercygate]

Mickey:

Well, I suppose it depends on whether you reject the legitimacy of the Coucil of Nicea. However, it surely cannot be denied that the Virgin Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Micky, Huguenot said that they do not accept the Creed. This sets them apart from the initial Reformation Protestants.

 

[Mickey]

Huguenot:

you aren’t sure either .

I’m positive!
Just as I am sure that my friends and family pray for me, I am even more sure that the angels and saints are praying for me.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

Micky, Hugunot said that they do not accept the Creed. This sets them apart from the initial Reformation Protestants.

Oops, I missed that one. That explains it.

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

Micky, Huguenot said that they do not accept the Creed. This sets them apart from the initial Reformation Protestants.

I can’t say we reject it either : we simply do not USE it, we don’t have any “set” texts that we refer to except the Bible ; I’ve said I’m Evangelical, some historians speak of “Radical Reformation”, for instance with Menno Simmons : some European Evangelicals are descended from Anabaptist/ Mennonite/Baptists movements …

I’ve read this Creed, I agree with most of it, simply we don’t use it, the only problem is that I don’t really understand what is meant, in it, by “communion of saints” : maybe I would agree with that too, but I don’t know !!!
So I couldn’t say that I “reject” it either, because then it would mean I don’t agree with it …( which is not the case for nearly all of it … )
If by “original Reformation Protestants” you mean Lutherans and Calvinists, yes we are apart, but we are as “old” : the first Anabaptist confession of faith was written in 1527, 3 years before the Lutheran confession of faith, and it has traits that correspond to what Evangelicals believe now …( but since a lot of different groups were called that way ( I mean “Anabaptist” ) by their detractors, it is difficult to trace our past directly to them …
We reject infant baptism because we believe baptism is a sign of commitment to God, and in the 16th century all the groups that questioned infant baptism were nicknamed Anabaptists, although they could be very different, because the way they baptized people attracted the others’ attention …

 

[Huguenot]

Mickey:

Oops, I missed that one. That explains it.

We don’t USE it, we don’t RECITE it, I don’t think we could say that we “reject” it either …I agree with most of it, the only problem is the passage about the communion of saints, I don’t really understand what it means in this creed, maybe I would agree with it too …
But in France even the Protestants who use this creed, for example the Reformed Churches, don’t address prayers to saints …
which means you can accept this creed without praying the saints …

 

[Mickey]

Huguenot:

the only problem is the passage about the communion of saints

The Nicene creed says nothing about the communion of saints.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

[Huguenot]

Mickey:

The Nicene creed says nothing about the communion of saints.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

If “Catholic and Apostolic” means Roman Catholic, sure I’ll have a problem with that …( but it would be the same for all Protestants … inclusive Lutherans and Reformed Churches )
If it means “universal”, the totality of the people who have been saved, there isn’t any problem …

Since for us baptism is an act of obedience to God by which a BELIEVER proclaims his faith and commits his life to God, we don’t think it has an “effect” in itself, so if we say “I acknowledge one baptism” with other people who will say the same but give baptism another meaning, we would feel a bit hypocritical…
There is still the problem I have mentioned before : “incarnate of the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary”, or "incarnate of the Holy Spirit IN the Virgin Mary "…

And does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, or from the Father and the Son ??? Personally I don’t know and the Creed is not very clear since some words are in brackets…

I’ve got to find a French version because I’ve always thought that the communion of saints was mentioned in it ; for Christmas I went to a Catholic Mass ( midnight celebration ) with a Catholic friend ( and a few members of my…atheist family !!! ) , they recited the Creed, and I’m nearly sure they mentioned the “communion of the saints” …or they recited something else before or after the creed that contained these words ??? I’ll have to check …

Apart from what I have mentioned, I have no problems with this creed…
You see I’m not so bad as that ! :dancing:

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

It must be OF the Virgin Mary in order to preserve the absolute clarity of language required when indicating that Jesus is true God and true man. The statement “conceived in the Virgin Mary” would imply that Jesus was a divine entity who somehow passed through his mother, not necessarily taking on humanity in the process.

And the Virgin Mary? Then you imply a separation of the two natures; Christian orthodoxy maintains that Jesus is ONE person in two natures, which though distinct natures, are not separat-ed.

The questions you ask point out the most important thing about all dogmas concerning the Blessed Virgin: all of them refer to some point which touches upon the Incarnation.

IN / OF / AND : the “and” is not MY translation, it is the translation posted in the message I’ve answered. It makes Mary equal to God and that’s why it seems strange to me.
Maybe “in” isn’t correct either, it was just a suggestion, I think “of” is a good idea, I’ll have to think of it, do some English translations use “of” and others “and” ?
I’ll have to check a French translation…

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

If “Catholic and Apostolic” means Roman Catholic, sure I’ll have a problem with that …( but it would be the same for all Protestants … inclusive Lutherans and Reformed Churches )
If it means “universal”, the totality of the people who have been saved, there isn’t any problem …

The first use of the word “catholic” to describe the Church occurred around the year 110 in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch (who was evangelized by John the Evangelist, appointed bishop of Antioch by him, and martyred in Rome around 115). In a world of city-churches, the word ‘catholic’ referred to those churches in communion with the Apostles and those who came after them. In other words: The Catholic Church (which still includes the Orthodox). The word “catholic” had no other meaning until the Reformation. Confessional churches which retained the Creed, re-defined the word Catholic. “Apostolic” here means in the succession of the apostles --l both physically via Apostolic Succession, and in their teaching. So again, Protestants who retain the creed must create their own definition of “apostolic.”

Since for us baptism is an act of obedience to God by which a BELIEVER proclaims his faith and commits his life to God, we don’t think it has an “effect” in itself, so if we say “I acknowledge one baptism” with other people who will say the same but give baptism another meaning, we would feel a bit hypocritical…

You are honest. That is exactly what it would be – but again, many Protestants re-define “one baptism.”

There is still the problem I have mentioned before : “incarnate of the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary”, or "incarnate of the Holy Spirit IN the Virgin Mary "…

This is difficult but important. I am unsure of the nature of your “problem.”

And does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, or from the Father and the Son ??? Personally I don’t know and the Creed is not very clear since some words are in brackets.

That’s another huge “issue” but it does not separate Catholics from most Protestants…

I’ve got to find a French version because I’ve always thought that the communion of saints was mentioned in it ; for Christmas I went to a Catholic Mass ( midnight celebration ) with a Catholic friend ( and a few members of my…atheist family !!! ) , they recited the Creed, and I’m nearly sure they mentioned the “communion of the saints” …or they recited something else before or after the creed that contained these words ??? I’ll have to check …

The Communion of Saints is mentioned in the earlier Apostles’ Creed, not the Nicene Creed, which was formulated to clarify certain points concerning the nature of the Incarnation.

 

[Huguenot]

Mickey:

Oops, I missed that one. That explains it.

I’ve read my message again ; I didn’t say we don’t “accept” the Creed, I said “we don’t use the creed although we agree with much of it”, or something of that kind…
The second part of the sentence is very important too !!!
It 's simple that we are not used to “reciting” “fixed” texts, or I don’t know how to say it correctly in English , I hope you understand what I mean …
If there are some texts we don’t use it doesn’t necessarily mean we are “against” them …

 

[Huguenot]

mercygate:

The first use of the word “catholic” to describe the Church occurred around the year 110 in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch (who was evangelized by John the Evangelist, appointed bishop of Antioch by him, and martyred in Rome around 115). In a world of city-churches, the word ‘catholic’ referred to those churches in communion with the Apostles and those who came after them. In other words: The Catholic Church (which still includes the Orthodox). The word “catholic” had no other meaning until the Reformation. Confessional churches which retained the Creed, re-defined the word Catholic. “Apostolic” here means in the succession of the apostles --l both physically via Apostolic Succession, and in their teaching. So again, Protestants who retain the creed must create their own definition of “apostolic.”

°°°°but if we say the SAME words with a DIFFERENT meaning, isn’t it a bit …hypocritical ???
Maybe that’s why we don’t use this Creed…

You are honest. That is exactly what it would be – but again, many Protestants re-define “one baptism.”

°°°°well maybe that’s another reason why we don’t use it …

This is difficult but important. I am unsure of the nature of your “problem.”

°°°if we use “and” ( incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary ), it seems to me that Mary is equal to God, it sounds strange …

That’s another huge “issue” but it does not separate Catholics from most Protestants…

°°°true, but it separates Catholics from Orthodox …
( "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father—or : from the Father and the Son )

The Communion of Saints is mentioned in the earlier Apostles’ Creed, not the Nicene Creed, which was formulated to clarify certain points concerning the nature of the Incarnation.

°°°°so maybe that’s what they recited in the Catholic Church I went to last Christmas …

Thanks for all your explanations !

 

[Mickey]

Huguenot:

If “Catholic and Apostolic” means Roman Catholic, sure I’ll have a problem with that …( but it would be the same for all Protestants … inclusive Lutherans and Reformed Churches )
If it means “universal”, the totality of the people who have been saved, there isn’t any problem .

Catholic means universal here, but in the year 325 there was one Church–the Catholic Church–and this was universal.

Huguenot:

Since for us baptism is an act of obedience to God by which a BELIEVER proclaims his faith and commits his life to God, we don’t think it has an “effect” in itself,

I will not begin a debate with you regarding baptism. You can start another thread if you wish. Let me just say that I cannot disagree with you more. I feel that “Believer’s baptism” is one of the more detrimental inventions of the late revisionists.
Infant baptism shows that God loves us and accepts us before we can ever know and love Him. It shows that we are wanted and loved by God from the very moment of our birth. Nothing shows the nature of God’s grace more than infant baptism. That is all I will say about it. If you would like to start yet another thread on this, I will participate.

Huguenot:

There is still the problem I have mentioned before : “incarnate of the Holy Spirit AND the Virgin Mary”, or "incarnate of the Holy Spirit IN the Virgin Mary "…

Yes, I suppose this is a problem for you.

Huguenot:

And does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, or from the Father and the Son ??? Personally I don’t know and the Creed is not very clear since some words are in brackets."…

You are referring to the Filioque. Roman Catholics say it and Eastern Catholics/Eastern Orthodox do not. Whether or not you include the Filioque depends on how you discern the spiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why I put it in parenthesis–but I think you already knew this.

Huguenot:

I’ve got to find a French version because I’ve always thought that the communion of saints was mentioned in it ; for Christmas I went to a Catholic Mass ( midnight celebration ) with a Catholic friend ( and a few members of my…atheist family !!! ) , they recited the Creed, and I’m nearly sure they mentioned the “communion of the saints” …or they recited something else before or after the creed that contained these words ??? I’ll have to check …

What you heard was “The Apostle’s Creed”.

Huguenot:

Apart from what I have mentioned, I have no problems with this creed.

Which means you have many problems with it–but then I’m not here in an attempt to force you to accept it.

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

IN / OF / AND : the “and” is not MY translation, it is the translation posted in the message I’ve answered. It makes Mary equal to God and that’s why it seems strange to me.
Maybe “in” isn’t correct either, it was just a suggestion, I think “of” is a good idea, I’ll have to think of it, do some English translations use “of” and others “and” ?
I’ll have to check a French translation…

To my knowledge, no English translation uses “and” or “in.” I have seen “from.” In Latin it is “de” (of) the Holy Spirit “ex” (out of or from) the Virgin Mary. This is not an area in which I have sufficient competence to offer a decent discussion or explanation.

 

[Huguenot]

Mickey:

Catholic means universal here, but in the year 325 there was one Church–the Catholic Church–and this was universal.

°°°thanks for your explanations !

I will not begin a debate with you regarding baptism. You can start another thread if you wish. Let me just say that I cannot disagree with you more. I feel that “Believer’s baptism” is one of the more detrimental inventions of the late revisionists.
Infant baptism shows that God loves us and accepts us before we can ever know and love Him. It shows that we are wanted and loved by God from the very moment of our birth. Nothing shows the nature of God’s grace more than infant baptism. That is all I will say about it. If you would like to start yet another thread on this, I will participate.

°°°I don’t intend to start a thread on infant baptism, I just mentioned my position to say that I didn’t want to be hypocritical reciting the same passage “I believe in one baptism” with other people if we have radically different positions…

You are referring to the Filioque. Roman Catholics say it and Eastern Catholics/Eastern Orthodox do not. Whether or not you include the Filioque depends on how you discern the spiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why I put it in parenthesis–but I think you already knew this.

°°°°so YOU put it in parenthesis ? I think it was the official text …

What you heard was “The Apostle’s Creed”.

°°°°thanks for this bit of information ; someone has already told me.

Which means you have many problems with it–but then I’m not here in an attempt to force you to accept it.

°°°°I have some problems with it, I agree with some parts, I don’t know if I can say I have “many” problems …