M
- Status
C
cathgal
Guest
It seems like the conversation in this thread doesn’t lead anywhere. You believe this but I believe that, you understand it that way but I understand it this way…and so and and so and so… Typical conversation between a Protestant and a Catholic. The only common thing both has is that their faith come from the SAME bible but why so many different interpretations. Is this God’s intention when He came to dwell among us centuries ago. To spread confusion? Wonder why a protestant never thought of that. If they did, they’re probably just happy to be confused. :whacky:
If a conversation is to bear any fruit, I believe a Protestant first need to know, did Christ founded ONE Church and hence ONE faith and promised to protect it 'til the end of time?
Well, that’s all I got to say. Anything else is a waste of time.
If a conversation is to bear any fruit, I believe a Protestant first need to know, did Christ founded ONE Church and hence ONE faith and promised to protect it 'til the end of time?
Well, that’s all I got to say. Anything else is a waste of time.
R
Rustyxcv
Guest
Huguenot–
Mercygate & Benedicite have had some good things to say and I concur with what they have shared. I think that it is very important to remember that the language we use when talking about holy things is not the same as the realities that this language represents. Likewise, many, many times in the church’s history language to describe a particular spiritual reality has only become clear or specific many decades or even centuries after the reality has been in existence and shared by all believers. The terminology (weak, mortal, incomplete) is not the reality (perfect, whole, infused with the Holy Spirit, created & ordained by God).
– It is a commonplace of theological history that the word “Trinity” and its definition occur nowhere in the Bible. Yet the three Persons of the Godhead are clearly seen and attested to throughout the whole New Testament. You cannot say that because a Church Council (Nicaea) only first formally defined the nature of the Holy Trinity in the 4th century that the Church as whole did not believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit whole-heartedly from the very beginning. God even appears as 3 persons to Abraham by the side of the road, way back in Genesis!
– Mary, the object of so much of our discussion, knew the three Persons of God even before Jesus was conceived. The angel messenger came from God the Father to tell her that she would be over-shadowed by God the Holy Spirit so as to give birth to God the Son. So a clear and complete belief in the Holy Trinity goes back to the VERY beginnings of this New Covenant that God is making with His people. The formulation of the doctrine in the 4th century was to counter heretical movements within the Church that believed that God was ONLY a “Unity” or ONLY a “Bi-nity.” The proclamation of this dogma only serves to clarify and make more explicit the nature of an eternal reality, it does not CREATE that reality “de novo” in the 4th century.
– The same is true of the other doctrines & dogmas you mention. The reality of Mary’s being the Mother of God goes all the way back to the beginning; it does not originate in the 5th century. John the Baptist and Elizabeth his mother knew that Mary was the Mother of God when John danced in her womb (see Luke’s Gospel). The three Wise Men and the shepherds knew that Mary was the Mother of God when they came to bring gifts and to adore the newborn baby. I suspect that even the wicked Herod knew that Mary was the Mother of God when he sent his troops to massacre the innocents (the Scripture only indicates that he was concerned with preserving his throne). The formulation came in the 5th century (as I have said before, above) to counter the heretical teaching that Jesus was born or lived as a mere man.
– Papal Infallibility is probably the most widely and the most grossly misunderstood teaching of the Church among the Church’s current detractors. It says NOTHING about the Pope’s ordinary day-to-day work, writing, correspondence, preaching, or teaching. It only applies to pronouncements concerning faith and morals that the Pope makes “ex cathedra.” In other words, it must be invoked by the Pope himself to apply to a particular dogma or doctrine. It only applies to two teachings in the last 200 years: the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven.
– Infallibility was only formally decreed in the 19th century, but again as with the other dogmas we have been discussing, it goes ALL the way back to the beginning. St. Peter and his long line of successors in Rome have been preserved (by God’s GRACE!)throughout their long tenure from teaching erroneously with regard to the deposit of the Church’s faith and in morals. Note, that is NOT to say that some of them personally were not highly immoral men. Some of them were, but they did not promote false teachings. The same cannot be said for other patriarchal sees. A dozen some patriarchs of the East actively promoted heretical Arian teachings and practices. If I am not mistaken, somewhere in the N.T. Jesus promises to send his followers “the Spirit that will lead them into all truth” and in another place “receive the spirit of truth; whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained.” So at least the promise of infallibilty goes all the way back to Our Lord. [my post is too long//Part II later]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessings to all!!! --Rusty
Mercygate & Benedicite have had some good things to say and I concur with what they have shared. I think that it is very important to remember that the language we use when talking about holy things is not the same as the realities that this language represents. Likewise, many, many times in the church’s history language to describe a particular spiritual reality has only become clear or specific many decades or even centuries after the reality has been in existence and shared by all believers. The terminology (weak, mortal, incomplete) is not the reality (perfect, whole, infused with the Holy Spirit, created & ordained by God).
– It is a commonplace of theological history that the word “Trinity” and its definition occur nowhere in the Bible. Yet the three Persons of the Godhead are clearly seen and attested to throughout the whole New Testament. You cannot say that because a Church Council (Nicaea) only first formally defined the nature of the Holy Trinity in the 4th century that the Church as whole did not believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit whole-heartedly from the very beginning. God even appears as 3 persons to Abraham by the side of the road, way back in Genesis!
– Mary, the object of so much of our discussion, knew the three Persons of God even before Jesus was conceived. The angel messenger came from God the Father to tell her that she would be over-shadowed by God the Holy Spirit so as to give birth to God the Son. So a clear and complete belief in the Holy Trinity goes back to the VERY beginnings of this New Covenant that God is making with His people. The formulation of the doctrine in the 4th century was to counter heretical movements within the Church that believed that God was ONLY a “Unity” or ONLY a “Bi-nity.” The proclamation of this dogma only serves to clarify and make more explicit the nature of an eternal reality, it does not CREATE that reality “de novo” in the 4th century.
– The same is true of the other doctrines & dogmas you mention. The reality of Mary’s being the Mother of God goes all the way back to the beginning; it does not originate in the 5th century. John the Baptist and Elizabeth his mother knew that Mary was the Mother of God when John danced in her womb (see Luke’s Gospel). The three Wise Men and the shepherds knew that Mary was the Mother of God when they came to bring gifts and to adore the newborn baby. I suspect that even the wicked Herod knew that Mary was the Mother of God when he sent his troops to massacre the innocents (the Scripture only indicates that he was concerned with preserving his throne). The formulation came in the 5th century (as I have said before, above) to counter the heretical teaching that Jesus was born or lived as a mere man.
– Papal Infallibility is probably the most widely and the most grossly misunderstood teaching of the Church among the Church’s current detractors. It says NOTHING about the Pope’s ordinary day-to-day work, writing, correspondence, preaching, or teaching. It only applies to pronouncements concerning faith and morals that the Pope makes “ex cathedra.” In other words, it must be invoked by the Pope himself to apply to a particular dogma or doctrine. It only applies to two teachings in the last 200 years: the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven.
– Infallibility was only formally decreed in the 19th century, but again as with the other dogmas we have been discussing, it goes ALL the way back to the beginning. St. Peter and his long line of successors in Rome have been preserved (by God’s GRACE!)throughout their long tenure from teaching erroneously with regard to the deposit of the Church’s faith and in morals. Note, that is NOT to say that some of them personally were not highly immoral men. Some of them were, but they did not promote false teachings. The same cannot be said for other patriarchal sees. A dozen some patriarchs of the East actively promoted heretical Arian teachings and practices. If I am not mistaken, somewhere in the N.T. Jesus promises to send his followers “the Spirit that will lead them into all truth” and in another place “receive the spirit of truth; whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained.” So at least the promise of infallibilty goes all the way back to Our Lord. [my post is too long//Part II later]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessings to all!!! --Rusty
R
Rustyxcv
Guest
Huguenot, et al. – [here is Part II of my Thursday post]
– Sorry the “time machine” idea was not clear to you. What I was trying to say is that Christ’s sacrifice is an eternal reality in which we participate fully at the Holy Mass in our own local time and particulars. It is not “renewed” in the sense that the sacrifice has gone stale and needs to be refreshed. It is renewed in the sense that it is brought anew to US in our present circumstances. Christ’s sacrifice on Golgatha in AD 30 was perfect, whole, and complete for all time past present and future. The individual Masses that are celebrated all around the world are all fully part of that One Sacrifice, which, as Mercygate has so well pointed out, is eternally present on earth and eternally present before the throne of the Father in Heaven. Hallelujah!
– This is a magnificent miracle and a profound mystery. I don’t believe that in our frail mortal bodies we can begin to comprehend fully all of its ramifications or possible gracious effects. The things that I have said about it are simply crude representations of its True Glorious Nature, and I apologize that my feeble attempts have been unable to convey to you some of the wonder of this all transcending reality and free gift from God.
– Please DO get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It MUST be available in French. The original publisher is Libraria Editrice Vaticana. It will no doubt help you to see the specific Scriptural and ANCIENT Church sources for all the things we have been talking about.
– As for the people of your local Catholic parishes having fallen into doctrinal error . . . ca se peut! It’s possible, but please remember that the ordinary man-on-the-street is not going to be responding to you with subtle theological nuances and fine shades of meaning that we indulge ourselves with here on this blog-page. Speaking of which . . . it occurs to me that your problem with Mary’s “title” might be completely obviated if we agreed to refer to her as the “Mother of God-the-Son” instead of simply as Mother of God. [If this is all it takes to get Huguenot to Confession and then to Mass, do you think, fellow posters to this string, we could adopt this terminology in the future???–lol!]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessings to all!!! --Rusty
– Sorry the “time machine” idea was not clear to you. What I was trying to say is that Christ’s sacrifice is an eternal reality in which we participate fully at the Holy Mass in our own local time and particulars. It is not “renewed” in the sense that the sacrifice has gone stale and needs to be refreshed. It is renewed in the sense that it is brought anew to US in our present circumstances. Christ’s sacrifice on Golgatha in AD 30 was perfect, whole, and complete for all time past present and future. The individual Masses that are celebrated all around the world are all fully part of that One Sacrifice, which, as Mercygate has so well pointed out, is eternally present on earth and eternally present before the throne of the Father in Heaven. Hallelujah!
– This is a magnificent miracle and a profound mystery. I don’t believe that in our frail mortal bodies we can begin to comprehend fully all of its ramifications or possible gracious effects. The things that I have said about it are simply crude representations of its True Glorious Nature, and I apologize that my feeble attempts have been unable to convey to you some of the wonder of this all transcending reality and free gift from God.
– Please DO get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It MUST be available in French. The original publisher is Libraria Editrice Vaticana. It will no doubt help you to see the specific Scriptural and ANCIENT Church sources for all the things we have been talking about.
– As for the people of your local Catholic parishes having fallen into doctrinal error . . . ca se peut! It’s possible, but please remember that the ordinary man-on-the-street is not going to be responding to you with subtle theological nuances and fine shades of meaning that we indulge ourselves with here on this blog-page. Speaking of which . . . it occurs to me that your problem with Mary’s “title” might be completely obviated if we agreed to refer to her as the “Mother of God-the-Son” instead of simply as Mother of God. [If this is all it takes to get Huguenot to Confession and then to Mass, do you think, fellow posters to this string, we could adopt this terminology in the future???–lol!]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blessings to all!!! --Rusty
M
mercygate
Guest
Yup. That’s about the sum of all my Huguenot knowledge. Beautiful, isn’t it? That and that a large number of Huguenot refugees settled in Canterbury, where they formed the backbone of the English weaving industry.
H
Huguenot
Guest
I think most French Protestants, inclusive Huguenots ( strictly speaking it means Reformed Churches, i.e. Calvinists, but in a larger meaning it can be used for all types of Protestants except if you are dealing with French History in a “serious” manner, then it means French Calvinists of the 16th and 17th, I’m not even sure it is used for the following centuries …) would reject this expression, Lutherans too : I went to the site of the French Protestant Federation ; there are some Evangelicals in it too, but mostly Lutherans and Reformed Churches ; there is a text about Mary and this title is never used … I don’t think they have avoided this title in order not to shock the Evangelicals , because there is also a text about baptism and it reflects the theology of the Lutherans and the Reformed Churches, the Evangelicals’ position is not even mentioned : they try to present the most common Protestant views on everything ( and then it is what you call “mainline Protestantism” if by this you mean : the non-Evangelical denominations …), so there is a series of keywords, precisely like “baptism”, “Mary” and so on ( many French people think that we despise her because we don’t pray her, or that we “don’t believe in her”, meaning that we don’t believe in Jesus’s miraculous conception–but we believe in it ! --that is why, I suppose, they have written this text about her ; this comes from the fact that since most French people are Catholics and there is a very small number of Protestants , some Catholics have never “met us” depending on what part of France they live in, so they don’t know Protestantism at all …On a French forum two Catholics have told me they would like to start an ecumenical prayer-group but they can’t because …there aren’t any Protestants around !!! it’s much easier to find Muslims : there are about 6 millions in France, and only about one million Protestants ( the French Protestant Federation says : 1 100 000 ) for a total population of about 63 million people … )
I am Evangelical but as far as the title “Mother of God” is concerned, I’ve never heard it used by other Protestants either …
I will try to do some supplementary research on the Protestant site I’ve mentioned, I’ll tell you if I find something else …
H
Huguenot
Guest
We can see divisions right from the start ; I don’t think it is what Christ wanted, but why should CATHOLICS be always right and we always wrong ???
We’re not happy to be confused, but if we can’t accept some doctrines of the Catholic Church what should we do ??? Go against our consciences and “stay” in the Catholic Church at all costs ?
I think my relation with Catholics is better than if I had joined the Catholic Church after becoming a believer , because I would have “protested” all the time …
H
Huguenot
Guest
I know that some realities can be put into words much later, and I agree with the example you gave ( Trinity ) because even if the word is not used in the Bible I “see” it in some passages , which is not the case for Mary as Mother of God and Papal infaillibility ( even if I’m not mistaken about what it means because somebody has explained it to me recently ) ; as for your assertion that no Pope has spread false teaching, precisely for me the Assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception are false doctrines … sorry …
I don’t see any difference between the Pope and other patriarchs : they all can commit mistakes, even "doctrinally "…
A change of vocabulary wouldn’t bring me to confession ( to Mass, you don’t need to worry, I occasionally go with Catholic friends ) nor would it convert me … ha ha h a … good try comrade !
E
eaglesmark
Guest
She is full of grace., yes,
She is blessed., yes,
She is the bridge between heaven and earth., i dont know about this… could anyone explain to me why she is called the bridge between heaven and earth… i haven’t remembered Jesus calling Mary as bridge between heaven and earth…
She deserves honor and veneration. - And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the PAPS which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:27-28)
E
eaglesmark
Guest
Why the title “MOTHER OF GOD”? Why not “Mother of Jesus” only? I think that God is a Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit. If Mary is the Mother of God, then are you saying that she is the mother of God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit?
God has no beginning and no end. if God has a mother then God has a beginning… God cannot be God if he has a beginning…
L
LegionofMary
Guest
Below is a link I believe would be most beneficial for those participating in this thread. Mary’s role is to lead us to her son, Jesus Christ.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARYINSC.htm
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
ewtn.com/library/MARY/MARYINSC.htm
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
E
eaglesmark
Guest
cont…
She is our mother. - i know that Jesus Christ told us that we have our Heavenly father, but has He told us anything about us having a Heavenly Mother?
She is an example for all Christians. - Yes, she is a good example. But its not that she is above than the rest of the christians during the early church. in fact, apostles never pointed to her as an example in their letters to the churches. Apostles are also good examples, in fact they did much labor for Christ…
She is our mother. - i know that Jesus Christ told us that we have our Heavenly father, but has He told us anything about us having a Heavenly Mother?
She is an example for all Christians. - Yes, she is a good example. But its not that she is above than the rest of the christians during the early church. in fact, apostles never pointed to her as an example in their letters to the churches. Apostles are also good examples, in fact they did much labor for Christ…
L
LegionofMary
Guest
It only brings more glory to Jesus Christ when we speak of Mary as Mother of God. It rightfully defends the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God himself has no beginning, he is infinite Spirit. Yet God did choose to reveal Himself to man by taking upon him the human nature of man and Christ’s flesh came from the Virgin Mary, His DNA comes from her. God entered into our time at that moment. Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. To speak of Mary as Mother of God confirms this belief also.
There is a great deal explaining the relationship of Mary here at Catholic Answers web page. Take the time to read through some of the articles as they will give you the proper understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Mary.
Our understanding of our Blessed Mother depends totally on our understanding of her Son. Everything about her flows from her being Christ’s mother; as our understanding of him grows our understanding of her grows.
My love for Jesus has grown deeper as my understanding and love for his mother Mary has also grown. She truly leads us to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ.
The love and peace of Christ be with you
There is a great deal explaining the relationship of Mary here at Catholic Answers web page. Take the time to read through some of the articles as they will give you the proper understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Mary.
Our understanding of our Blessed Mother depends totally on our understanding of her Son. Everything about her flows from her being Christ’s mother; as our understanding of him grows our understanding of her grows.
My love for Jesus has grown deeper as my understanding and love for his mother Mary has also grown. She truly leads us to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ.
The love and peace of Christ be with you
E
eaglesmark
Guest
Is there any evidence that Jesus Christ is glorified when we address Mary as Mother of God? Has Jesus ever told us He will be happy when we address Mary mother of God?
May God shine His light to all of us
E
eaglesmark
Guest
We both agree that Jesus is both Human and Divine… Mary was chosen by God to bear Jesus in her womb.
However, Mary has no part of Jesus being Divine. Her role is limited only in Jesus’ Human nature. She just gave Jesus the mortal body, but never has given any Divine nature of Christ, since Jesus Christ, before she was concieved by Mary was already God.
However, Mary has no part of Jesus being Divine. Her role is limited only in Jesus’ Human nature. She just gave Jesus the mortal body, but never has given any Divine nature of Christ, since Jesus Christ, before she was concieved by Mary was already God.
M
mercygate
Guest
One of the best explications of “Mother of God” that I have ever heard is by the Presbyterian theologian and apologist, Dr. R. C. Sproul. I wonder if you could fjind it through his web page, www.ligonier.com? I suggest Sproul to you because he is a card-carrying sola Scriptura/sola fide Protestant – so you don’t have to take our word for it.
Most of the detraction of Our Lady came, not from the Reformation, but from the Enlightenment. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, all accepted the Marian doctrines, including the Immaculate Conception, her sinlessness, and her perpetual virginity.
L
LegionofMary
Guest
Is Jesus Christ God Incarnate? Did Jesus love his mother? Would Jesus who is God who is love in the greatest expression that exists ever deny us his children to love his mother also?
These are answers that are found within the heart of the believer.
Love one another as I have loved you.
These are answers that are found within the heart of the believer.
Love one another as I have loved you.
M
mercygate
Guest
Right. The theological point turns on the fact that she gave birth to Jesus, who was fully divine and fully human, but that Jesus is one divine person with two natures (human and divine). Mary does not give birth to a “nature” but to a person. The doctrine protects the idea that Jesus is divine and not just a human being who became divinized at some point AFTER his conception. A lot of the “heat” that accumulates around the title “Theotokos” comes from a failure to understand the specific heresy the title contradicts.
I see that you are fairly new here. Try the main home page of Catholic Answers for tract-length discussions of some of the main points Protestants frequently raise about Catholic teaching. On this subject, go here for a start.
E
eaglesmark
Guest
So you would agree that Mary has no part whatsoever in the Divinity of Jesus Christ?
M
Mickey
Guest
And the Word was made flesh. Jesus was born on this earth through the womb of the virgin Mary. She is the bridge–this is Sacred Tradition.
What Jesus is saying here is that His mother is blessed for hearing the Word of God and keeping it–her fiat. And others will also be blessed for keeping the Word of God.
- Status