Protestant View of Mariology

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG said:
Because in Orthodoxy we do not believe we can just conquer something with logic [and] ,So if the relationship that resulted in a conception of a child is spousal, how can that be interpreted as anything else but sexual?
.
Click to expand...
Again where does the Orthodox Church state this “specifically” I’ll give you this, your having a slight issue with logic as of late.

Holy Spirit and Mary =SEX? WHAT…“blasphemy” I’d be real careful with the loose chatter of the Holy Spirit. “Unforgivable” per scripture.

Listen, stop defending what you do not need to defend at the risk of further spiral down. That makes no sense.

Your attempt to show Mary in a very human way in comparison to other women, has now reduced THE MOST HOLY SPIRIT to the “same”.
 
ConstantineTG said:
LOL as well, I laid it out quite too plainly that what I intended to say. I wanted to say God did not make humanity suffer, that is, the after effects of sin is not from God himself.
Click to expand...
That’s another non-sequitur. 🤷

You didn’t address the atheistic question: why couldn’t God just wipe away everyone’s sins, instead of suffering and dying on a cross to do this?

What is your answer to that, CTG?
 
ConstantineTG said:
But that is what “conceived” means. Try a dictionary, its useful.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it is quite helpful 👍

You will see here that there are a multitude of definitions of “conceive”

Please look at def #5.

No sperm and ovum are required for that definition.

As such, Adam and Eve were indeed immaculately conceived. They were, like Mary, quite human even if they were created without any sin or concupiscence.

Are you now going to argue that Adam and Eve were not really human because they were immaculate at their creation?
 
Great posts. Constantine, you are making us sounding like we are some kind of crack Mary idolators!!

PR…like your last two again…great.

I wonder if this thread is feeding the lurkers that we are idolators, though.
 
KathleenGee said:
I wonder if this thread is feeding the lurkers that we are idolators, though.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, Kathleen. I think it’s quite clear that the arguments that have been presented by CTG are illogical, and not well reasoned.
 
Porknpie said:
That “path” from the Catholic Church is clear. Catholics do not worship Mary. There is no “line” that the Church approaches in this regards. One could say that same about the Orthodox who kiss a picture of Mary in church and how this could approach a line of “worship” and confuse your faithful. Catholics never kiss Marian pictures in Church and only kiss the cross on Good Friday. If we did so, we would be accused of not practicing the Christian life correctly and leading people to a false path, confusing Mary with Christ.
Click to expand...
:yup: Of course, catholics do not assume such silliness about the orthodox churches. I wish Constantine would show the same respect. Instead, he insists that the CC endorses Marian worship, :rolleyes:
 
joe371 said:
:yup: Of course, catholics do not assume such silliness about the orthodox churches. I wish Constantine would show the same respect. Instead, he insists that the CC endorses Marian worship, :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He stated that he was Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy. One would think he knows better than what he is proclaiming. Maybe it was poor religious education classes?
 
aidanbradypop said:
He stated that he was Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy. One would think he knows better than what he is proclaiming. Maybe it was poor religious education classes?
Click to expand...
No I don’t think so. See the article here on Orthodox views of Marian apparitions.

Particularly the quote below.

Is God really speaking through all, or any, of these apparitions? Are any of the related solar phenomena genuine signs from Heaven, or are they counterfeit?

Believing, as we do, that the Orthodox Church Is the Church, wherein is to be found the fullness of the Catholic Faith—that is, the Apostolic Faith in all its purity and wholeness—there can be no question of accepting anything contrary to Orthodox teaching and practice. This must immediately render suspect any shrine or apparition involving the dogma of the Immaculate Conception or encouraging the un-Orthodox cult of devotion to parts of the body—the hearts of Jesus and Mary.

Constantine is simply following what he believes to the be the fullness of truth…although I showed through logic and reason that “conception” does not have to be related to having “sex”…that “all conception involves sex” is a false premise…and is Mormon in thought.
 
Porknpie said:
.although I showed through logic and reason that “conception” does not have to be related to having “sex”…that “all conception involves sex” is a false premise…and is Mormon in thought.
Click to expand...
Right, and after invoking use of the dictionary by CTG, it was presented to him that there are lots of definitions (the majority, actually) that do not involve gametes/sex/sperm/ovum/sexual reproduction.
 
PRmerger said:
That’s another non-sequitur. 🤷

You didn’t address the atheistic question: why couldn’t God just wipe away everyone’s sins, instead of suffering and dying on a cross to do this?

What is your answer to that, CTG?
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t answer that, St. Athanasius has answered that.
But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God.
Click to expand...
Basically, the effect of Adam’s sin is that our nature changed. If God would alter our nature, then He would have destroyed us because we would have become something else other than what we are. So the only solution was to share His nature with ours, when Christ become incarnate this made human nature united with divine nature without altering human nature. So whatever was imperfect in human nature was perfected by the divinity of God.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Again where does the Orthodox Church state this “specifically” I’ll give you this, your having a slight issue with logic as of late.

Holy Spirit and Mary =SEX? WHAT…“blasphemy” I’d be real careful with the loose chatter of the Holy Spirit. “Unforgivable” per scripture.

Listen, stop defending what you do not need to defend at the risk of further spiral down. That makes no sense.

Your attempt to show Mary in a very human way in comparison to other women, has now reduced THE MOST HOLY SPIRIT to the “same”.
Click to expand...
Again, I am not the one who said that the Holy Spirit is the spouse of Mary based on the fact that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived. Conception with a spouse is sex.

Again, you are correct, this is blasphemy. That is why I strongly oppose it.
 
PRmerger said:
Right, and after invoking use of the dictionary by CTG, it was presented to him that there are lots of definitions (the majority, actually) that do not involve gametes/sex/sperm/ovum/sexual reproduction.
Click to expand...
But why is the Holy Spirit called by Roman Catholics the Spouse of Mary? Is it because He loves her and cares for her the same way Christ loves and cares for His Church? Is it because He laid his life down for her the way Christ laid his life down for His Church? Or is it because they conceived a baby?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Again, I am not the one who said that the Holy Spirit is the spouse of Mary based on the fact that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that Mary conceived. Conception with a spouse is sex.

Again, you are correct, this is blasphemy. That is why I strongly oppose it.
Click to expand...
So, based on the fact that the CC uses the word spouse when illustrating the unique mystical bond that took place between the HS and Mary, you are now accusing the CC of teaching blasphemously? :confused:
 
ConstantineTG said:
But why is the Holy Spirit called by Roman Catholics the Spouse of Mary? Is it because He loves her and cares for her the same way Christ loves and cares for His Church? Is it because He laid his life down for her the way Christ laid his life down for His Church? Or is it because they conceived a baby?
Click to expand...
It is because Jesus became the messiah, King of kings, incarnate Son of God via the mystical union of the HS and the blessed mother Mary.👍
 
joe371 said:
So, based on the fact that the CC uses the word spouse when illustrating the unique mystical bond that took place between the HS and Mary, you are now accusing the CC of teaching blasphemously? :confused:
Click to expand...
Why use spouse to describe a mystical bond that resulted in conception if it does not denote sex? Can you tell me what qualities of a spouse does the relationship of the Holy Spirit and Mary has?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Why use spouse to describe a mystical bond that resulted in conception if it does not denote sex? Can you tell me what qualities of a spouse does the relationship of the Holy Spirit and Mary has?
Click to expand...
Spouse is used to indicate the unique mystical bond that scripture reminds us, ineffably took place, that resulted in the Savior of the world. 👍 You believe that two people cant be spouses unless they are carnally active. That is not true.

So, based on the fact that the CC uses the word spouse when illustrating the unique mystical bond that took place between the HS and Mary, you are now accusing the CC of teaching blasphemously? :confused:
 
joe371 said:
Through the ineffable and mystical bond, that we cannot possibly grasp or articulate, but nonetheless, took place…Not sure what else to say. 🤷
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you do not make sense. If one is to use an analogy, that is because the analogy used has a quality known to all that can be applied to where the analogy is used. When the analogy of a spousal relationship is applied to Christ and His Church, that is because the quality of a spouse, that is two people who become one, is applied to Christ and the Church. Also, the quality of spousal love is used. The Church is even depicted as an unfaithful spouse whom the faithful and loving husband has sought out even though the bride has become a harlot and laid with others.

Now, if there is no spousal quality between the Holy Spirit and Mary, why call her the spouse?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Sorry, but you do not make sense. If one is to use an analogy, that is because the analogy used has a quality known to all that can be applied to where the analogy is used. When the analogy of a spousal relationship is applied to Christ and His Church, that is because the quality of a spouse, that is two people who become one, is applied to Christ and the Church. Also, the quality of spousal love is used. The Church is even depicted as an unfaithful spouse whom the faithful and loving husband has sought out even though the bride has become a harlot and laid with others.

Now, if there is no spousal quality between the Holy Spirit and Mary, why call her the spouse?
Click to expand...
I do not make sense probably because you are interpreting my post through the lens of you beliefs. That’s cool and i certainly respect that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top