Non-Catholic Christians: Mary, mother of the Church?

[steve_b]

Fair thinking and Logic. Not really that foreign to me.

Actually I was just referring to that one single post that went on and on about that Romans verse. Didn’t see the connection but if you meant it in the light of the thread topic, by all means then I can start to comprehend.

I just have a question? Your logic to get to an answer follows a path. It is not just BAM there is the answer. So this leads me to the question? Although I’d prefer not to debate it much further as it always ends the same way.

By stating it in such a way as you have that “Mary gave Jesus his body” and then you go on. In a physical sense I guess this is true. Jesus the human did enter the earth through Mary. But Mary has just the same “power” to create human beings as me and you. Sounds to me like I should thank my mom for my brown eyes and square jaw as if she could actually have decided I should not have that.

*So if a mother can not even decide on the colour of her son’s eyes how so in any sense for a Human/God to be born and any attribute related?

because Mary is NOT just any mother… agreed ?

footnotes are functional

*Lk 1:
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace,e] the Lord is with you!”f] 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her,g] “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her,“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be bornh] will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
*
Mary’s cousin Elizabeth knew who was in Mary’s womb. **Luke 1:43
*

*
*
(And going DEEP in history is exactly what made my beliefs much more clear. History is exactly the reason I am Protestant)

I used the phrase “to be deep in history” as shorthand, because I thought you might have recognized the complete phrase and where that phrase in it’s complete sense, comes from. I assumed incorrectly. My bad

The whole phrase, is what follows. It’s used frequently around Catholic Answers (CA). It’s from Cardinal John Henry Newman’s work, while he was still a Protestant

From Newman’s "Essay on development of Doctrine”
From section 5 Christianity of History not Protestantism

Specifically, Newman said in section 5, “the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.”…it looks like Newman then credits Gibbon for saying “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

Newman wrote his work while still Protestant. Only If interested, you can scroll up the page to explore that essay further. Mind you, only if interested

 

[MichaelP3]

because Mary is NOT just any mother*… agreed ?

footnotes are functional

Lk 1:
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace,e] the Lord is with you!”f] 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her,g] “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her,“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be bornh] will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
*
Mary’s cousin Elizabeth knew who was in Mary’s womb. *Luke 1:43

I used the phrase “to be deep in history” as shorthand, because I thought you might have recognized the complete phrase and where that phrase in it’s complete sense, comes from. I assumed incorrectly. My bad

The whole phrase, is what follows. It’s used frequently around Catholic Answers (CA). It’s from Cardinal John Henry Newman’s work, while he was still a Protestant

From Newman’s "Essay on development of Doctrine”
From section 5 Christianity of History not Protestantism

Specifically, Newman said in section 5, “the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.”…it looks like Newman then credits Gibbon for saying “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”

Newman wrote his work while still Protestant. Only If interested, you can scroll up the page to explore that essay further. Mind you, only if interested

Mr Steve b. I know we haven’t had any conversations before (if we had, please correct me but nothing comes to mind).

I’d rather withhold the assumptions. I started an entire thread a few months ago on exactly that phrase by Newman. And let’s please withhold the sarcasm. When I said deep in history I mean deep enough that knowing about Newman would be considered elementary.

But that’s it from me. As I stated, all these end the same.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Can i ask you a question? Not to sound unruly but what exactly were you reading?

Most of the folks I know who started really objectively studying history(meaning mainly Church history) End up becoming Catholic or the very least Orthodox or Anglican if they cant stomach Marian dogma or Papal authority.

Curious because I have seen you say this on multiple occasions.

Thanks

What exactly! I think a true answer would be everything. The entire Catechism, numerous editions through history. Basically every council (Accepted and not), researching every Pope (Yes every one). Church father writings. Controversies through history. Peppins gift. Even how conclave changed from choosing a successor, to a dove sitting on someones head up until today. The good thing is I LOVE history. My wife is doing her PhD in history and we met because we started to speak about her Masters topic that time and she asked my advise.

That’s just to name a few. If I say I contributed quite some 1000s of hours to it, I am not joking. People always assumed I read a few books by some Protestant historian. I found it more interesting to research the “sources” of Catholic teachings and not trying to find a counter argument. 95% of my “deep in history” would be Catholic accepted sources.

I was very objective. I come from a family and country that isn’t anti-Catholic at all. I would not have faced any “bad” whatever if I decided to become Catholic. Orthodox I didn’t that far into which I may should do sometime. Historically I would lean more towards Orthodox I should say.

 

[steve_b]

Mr Steve b. I know we haven’t had any conversations before (if we had, please correct me but nothing comes to mind).

I don’t recall us having any conversations either.
M:

I’d rather withhold the assumptions. I started an entire thread a few months ago on exactly that phrase by Newman.

I didn’t know that. I’ll have to look it up

Ahhh I found it To Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

and no I didn’t participate in that thread. It’s still open, maybe I will?
M:

And let’s please withhold the sarcasm. When I said deep in history I mean deep enough that knowing about Newman would be considered elementary.

I can assure you, there was No sarcasm meant by me. I tried to keep this as clinical as possible.
M:

But that’s it from me. As I stated, all these end the same.

Regards

They don’t always end the same, but I understand some do. That’s why I made the following point in this post #100

Regards in return

 

[Lenten_ashes]

What exactly! I think a true answer would be everything. The entire Catechism, numerous editions through history. Basically every council (Accepted and not), researching every Pope (Yes every one). Church father writings. Controversies through history. Peppins gift. Even how conclave changed from choosing a successor, to a dove sitting on someones head up until today. The good thing is I LOVE history. My wife is doing her PhD in history and we met because we started to speak about her Masters topic that time and she asked my advise.

That’s just to name a few. If I say I contributed quite some 1000s of hours to it, I am not joking. People always assumed I read a few books by some Protestant historian. I found it more interesting to research the “sources” of Catholic teachings and not trying to find a counter argument. 95% of my “deep in history” would be Catholic accepted sources.

I was very objective. I come from a family and country that isn’t anti-Catholic at all. I would not have faced any “bad” whatever if I decided to become Catholic. Orthodox I didn’t that far into which I may should do sometime. Historically I would lean more towards Orthodox I should say.

Thanks for the reply.

Definitely been controversy and bad Popes throughout the ages. Didnt Dante say a few are burning in hell? And the scandals bothered me a great deal because of all the lives that were ruined and so flippantly pushed under the rug.

Anyway for a 2,000 year old insitution i sort of expect to see some.

All that being said, they never taught error theologically. Questionable Marian beliefs because of lack of biblical and patristic support, but even then, nothing changed it just became more defined. And that’s clear by closer closer examination of Eastern Orthodox beliefs on her. (1054 is a arbitrary number, they actually split long before that imo) which are very similar.

Studying church history leads one away from protestantism, typically, because you see a picture of a authoritative, apostolic and Eucharistic church. A far cry from most protestant churches today. They all lack any real, objective, final standard of authority. And there are churches out there who have communion monthly or in some places quarterly And then of course we see each denomination being torn apart by immorality. This is obviously not what the Lord has intended for us. I was a protestant for 13 years so I’ll always a soft spot for that branch of Christendom, but i hated the direction i saw it going in.

Anyway in the future i look forward to hearing more as to what the main issues you had that scared you off were and your reasoning for believing protestantism was a better option.

 

[MichaelP3]

Thanks for the reply.

Definitely been controversy and bad Popes throughout the ages. Didnt Dante say a few are burning in hell? And the scandals bothered me a great deal because of all the lives that were ruined and so flippantly pushed under the rug.

Anyway for a 2,000 year old insitution i sort of expect to see some.

All that being said, they never taught error theologically. Questionable Marian beliefs because of lack of biblical and patristic support, but even then, nothing changed it just became more defined. And that’s clear by closer closer examination of Eastern Orthodox beliefs on her. (1054 is a arbitrary number, they actually split long before that imo) which are very similar.

Studying church history leads one away from protestantism, typically, because you see a picture of a authoritative, apostolic and Eucharistic church. A far cry from most protestant churches today. They all lack any real, objective, final standard of authority. And there are churches out there who have communion monthly or in some places quarterly And then of course we see each denomination being torn apart by immorality. This is obviously not what the Lord has intended for us. I was a protestant for 13 years so I’ll always a soft spot for that branch of Christendom, but i hated the direction i saw it going in.

Anyway in the future i look forward to hearing more as to what the main issues you had that scared you off were and your reasoning for believing protestantism was a better option.

Hi again

Yea I know the arguments that they never taught something wrong. Although I have found numerous very contradicting writings but then the argument is on infallibility again and what it means. I am still somewhat torn between if they knew this definition that time or not. Some of those writings seemed pretty authoritative.

And on the split. Again taking history, you had 5 sees and 1 of them was supposedly supreme. After Rome did some stuff and basically said, “well I am right and you are wrong” we have 1 see and 4 who still stayed together. Not even 1 other see decided, maybe Rome was right for she is supreme by the way. Personally I feel union between the 5 will be great. But after the dogma of Papal infallibility I would say this was made impossible ever. The East will never accept it, for it would mean they were always wrong, the West cannot nullify it, for then it would be proof they erred. I sometimes wonder if people realise the damage they cause for so many future generation when they make harsh decisions as emotions runs high. (Just for interest sake, have a look at the date when it was declared. Just as the Italian Unification was at an end and Rome was going to fall. The Pope knew he will lose all physical power in the Papal states).

I wouldn’t say Protestantism was necessarily a better option. I just got to realise all denominations have their faults and it is certainly not a wrong option. I am not condemning Catholicism at all. It is constant (not you at least) posts pointing out how Protestantism is so wrong that keeps me on this Forum.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi again

Yea I know the arguments that they never taught something wrong. Although I have found numerous very contradicting writings but then the argument is on infallibility again and what it means. I am still somewhat torn between if they knew this definition that time or not. Some of those writings seemed pretty authoritative.

There have been a few within the Church (ECF) Who voiced opinions contrary to official Church teachings/beliefs. Augustine is admired by both Catholics and Protestants and has been referred to as Mr. Duplicity at times. But that’s one voice out of many and doesn’t speak on behalf of the entire Church. And in regards to the papacy, infallibe work needs to meet certain conditions.

And on the split. Again taking history, you had 5 sees and 1 of them was supposedly supreme. After Rome did some stuff and basically said, “well I am right and you are wrong” we have 1 see and 4 who still stayed together. Not even 1 other see decided, maybe Rome was right for she is supreme by the way. Personally I feel union between the 5 will be great. But after the dogma of Papal infallibility I would say this was made impossible ever. The East will never accept it, for it would mean they were always wrong, the West cannot nullify it, for then it would be proof they erred. I sometimes wonder if people realise the damage they cause for so many future generation when they make harsh decisions as emotions runs high. (Just for interest sake, have a look at the date when it was declared. Just as the Italian Unification was at an end and Rome was going to fall. The Pope knew he will lose all physical power in the Papal states).

Well, things are believed in and not officially declared unless challenged. That’s the reason we had so many councils throughout the ages affirming what’s already there.

The Eastern churches have acknowledged that Rome is first among equals. So they recognize primacy but don’t really recognize it. IMO, that is just double talk, theo-babble. You can’t be sorta first anymore than you can be sorta pregnant, lol. You either are or you are not. Anyway, I agree that Rome has not always been very diplomatic throughout the ages. If the schism ever does come to a end it would likely happen under this current Pope who seems to be incredibly humble.

I wouldn’t say Protestantism was necessarily a better option. I just got to realise all denominations have their faults and it is certainly not a wrong option. I am not condemning Catholicism at all. It is constant (not you at least) posts pointing out how Protestantism is so wrong that keeps me on this Forum.

Understood and appreciated. I have had to defend my faith against my own relatives who have a laundry list of objections about the Catholic Church. I feel like people don’t actually dislike the Church, they dislike what they think it is because it’s very misunderstood.

Pax

 

[steve_b]

Hi again

Yea I know the arguments that they never taught something wrong. Although I have found numerous very contradicting writings but then the argument is on infallibility again and what it means. I am still somewhat torn between if they knew this definition that time or not.

Just a few thoughts .

The definition of papal infallibility defined at Vat I council, can be applied to every pope, past present and future. The subject in question, (papal infallibility) for example, must be restricted to the pope, defining doctrine, (not a discipline), doctrine must be on the subject of faith or morals, and it is to be held by the entire Church. That’s it.

For reference

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **

1. • 
     

     • he possesses,
     • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

     • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

     from papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

     M:
     

     And on the split. Again taking history, you had 5 sees and 1 of them was supposedly supreme. After Rome did some stuff and basically said, “well I am right and you are wrong” we have 1 see and 4 who still stayed together. Not even 1 other see decided, maybe Rome was right for she is supreme by the way.

     Historically speaking (rephrased)
     
     Who among THEM is the greatest? , This is an old old argument
     
     Origin of that argument? The last Supper, in the upper Room
     Who started the argument and keeps it going? Satan
     
     #[812 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11159277&postcount=812)
     
     As an aside, It’s not that division happens, it’s that division is condemned in scripture as are those who do it and keep it going. That’s why we need to warn dividers
     M:
     

     Personally I feel union between the 5 will be great. But after the dogma of Papal infallibility I would say this was made impossible ever.
     The East will never accept it, for it would mean they were always wrong, the West cannot nullify it, for then it would be proof they erred.

     By East I assume you refer to the Orthodox?
     Bp John I think answers your points.
     
     Here’s a question I’ve asked many times and in many different ways over the last 12 years on these forums. I haven’t gotten an answer YET, but I’m always hopeful that in asking, someone has the answer.
     
     "When is the first time in history, in writing, properly referenced, where we see the name “Orthodox Church”?
     
     Just thinking out loud, If someone asked me that question about the “Catholic Church” it would take me seconds to post it.
     M:
     

     I sometimes wonder if people realise the damage they cause for so many future generation when they make harsh decisions as emotions runs high. (Just for interest sake, have a look at the date when it was declared. Just as the Italian Unification was at an end and Rome was going to fall. The Pope knew he will lose all physical power in the Papal states).

     The real problem is, people don’t know history, or their faith. When that happens they get picked off by who know who, or they end up buying a lie because they don’t know any better. [2 Pet 1:5-10] (paraphrased)
     
     “5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;”
     
     For purposes of sharing some Church history, properly documented. ***The same Church who calls Mary mother of the Church ***
     
     Origins of Peter as Pope
     
     And Pope Francis, 266th successor to St Peter. Jesus keeps His promises.