Question to our 'seperated brethren' (protestants), who deny Mary, Theotokos

[CopticChristian]

I am in the Reformed camp but I affirm the idea that Mary is the Mother of God. It is quite logical. The whole reason it came up was because some people were running around claiming that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God. These people denied that Jesus is the God-Man with two natures in one person. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God was to deny a critical fact concerning the incarnation. SO we say Mary is the Mother of God, the God-bearer, Gk theotokos. At one point, to profess that Mary was the mother of Jesus was to say that she was the mother of his human nature only, meaning He was adopted or something. There were a number of heresies related to His nature that get refuted when you say Mary is the Mother of God. That does NOT mean Mary is divine.

Protestants would do well to do their research. Catholics would do well to show Protestants the logic behind theological positions and stop posting some random quote from someone no one has ever heard of as if it authoritative to a Protestant, which is never is (if that’s on this thread, I overlooked it and I apologize - I don’t mean to call anyone out). And Protestants almost never pay attention to what bishops say per se. If they paid attention to Catholic episcopal authority they would not be Protestant, Augustine being the exception seemingly. But he is so prolific and nuanced I tend to discount quotes from him just because he is so prolific and nuanced and he seemingly said enough stuff that anybody can grab a boatload from him to support a position.

So I guess I am trouble with both sides. And I like Athanasius.

Truth,

I said this earlier…and you elaborate what can be understood as a statement about the Christ and not stated for His Mother…

Theotokus…God Bearer, is to ensure the humanity and Divinty of Christ and not the motherood of Mary…

 

[Cachonga]

Rosinante and PRmerger, I believe I have already made myself quite clear in my first post (#18). My source was the Faith Database, which is available in the CA Shop. I qouted from the 1st anathema of the council which is the only one that mentions mother of God (but not Mary by name, which I, personally, find very telling as to how this was viewed by the bishops in attendance). I know I’m not infallible, but I did fairly well in reading comprehension in school.

I will point out that just because they called themselves Catholic does not mean they are the same church as we have today, but that is another topic for another thread.

 

[TertiumQuid]

That’s just patently embarrasing.
First, you pretend to be ignorant of any such claims ("…I doubt you’ll be able to [produce] any credible sources")…
…then you refer me to “Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM”, a cite virtually acknowledging a multitude of such quotes from Marty (then lamely trying to spin them, or explain them away).
Thanks anyway for the link–was good for a few laughs…
But next time, may I kindly suggest owning that you are aware of Marty’s various back peddles, but simply have a your own spin on them, to wihch you subscribe (or I’m sure you’d rather phrase it as you disagree with my characterizations thereof, or conclusions drawn therefrom…).
Okham’s razoor however, suggests rather compellingly, that Marty meant what he said–not what protestants wished he had meant by what he actaully said.
VIVAT JESUS!

I’m the unembarrassed author of “Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM” whom you say “lamely” spins and explains away multitudes of Luther quotes in order to provoke laughs.

I suggest before you make such remarks on a public forum, you actually provide cogent examples to prove your opinion. Saying something and proving something are two very different things.

JS

 

[Rosinante]

I am in the Reformed camp but I affirm the idea that Mary is the Mother of God. It is quite logical. The whole reason it came up was because some people were running around claiming that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God. These people denied that Jesus is the God-Man with two natures in one person. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God was to deny a critical fact concerning the incarnation. SO we say Mary is the Mother of God, the God-bearer, Gk theotokos. At one point, to profess that Mary was the mother of Jesus was to say that she was the mother of his human nature only, meaning He was adopted or something. There were a number of heresies related to His nature that get refuted when you say Mary is the Mother of God. That does NOT mean Mary is divine.

Protestants would do well to do their research. Catholics would do well to show Protestants the logic behind theological positions and stop posting some random quote from someone no one has ever heard of as if it authoritative to a Protestant, which is never is (if that’s on this thread, I overlooked it and I apologize - I don’t mean to call anyone out). And Protestants almost never pay attention to what bishops say per se. If they paid attention to Catholic episcopal authority they would not be Protestant, Augustine being the exception seemingly. But he is so prolific and nuanced I tend to discount quotes from him just because he is so prolific and nuanced and he seemingly said enough stuff that anybody can grab a boatload from him to support a position.

So I guess I am trouble with both sides. And I like Athanasius.

I must kindly dissent to your polite suggestion here. There are a multitude of Cat. apologists who seek to explain Catholicism to our seperated brethren, by and through the bible, since that is the only authority that seems to resonate with pro’s. (e.g.–John Salazar, Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, perhaps Patrick Madrid, inter alia); I defer to them on this particular approach, but I can’t help but note the inevitalbe danger–me, engaging a pro., in scriptural debate–is me, proferring MY OPINIOIN–that is, MY INTERPRETATION–of what scripture says, in order to dispute their (i.e.==the pro’s) interpretation.

So much easier, so much more effective, IMO, to expose their interpretation as just that–THEIR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION–and then juxtapose that, with what how Church Fatehrs interpretted it. Now, if the CF’s are obscure and unknown to our seperated brethren…what better way to introduce them, then to show them that this discussion was held hundreds of years ago, and resolved…against your interpretation!

Leave it to them to explain why their personal interpretation, or the interpretation according to the prophets Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et. al., should be favored over the interpretations of the Church Fathers.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[Rosinante]

I’m the unembarrassed author of “Yeah, but, but, but.DOT COM” whom you say “lamely” spins and explains away multitudes of Luther quotes in order to provoke laughs.

I suggest before you make such remarks on a public forum, you actually provide cogent examples to prove your opinion. Saying something and proving something are two very different things.

JS

First, I didn’t suggest you did it to ‘provoke laughs’–that’s just the reaction your cite provoked in me;

Second, the point is that Luther actually made many of these comments, and the poster to whom my post was directed, feigned ignorance about the statemets (like me, feigning ignorance about the inquisitions);

Third, the mere existence of your cite, indicates the need to ‘explain away’ Luther’s back peddling.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[AbideWithMe]

Now, if the CF’s are obscure and unknown to our seperated brethren…

No, this isn’t true. You’re showing your own ignorance here.

As just one example of my point, one of the most extensive, accessible sources of the writings of Early Church Fathers on the internet is at CCEL, which is a Protestant site.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Second, the point is that Luther actually made many of these comments, and the poster to whom my post was directed, feigned ignorance about the statemets (like me, feigning ignorance about the inquisitions);

You misunderstood. That poster was asking for a credible source. These quotes you provided have already been discussed here by that poster and others on different threads.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, this isn’t true. You’re showing your own ignorance here.

As just one example of my point, one of the most extensive, accessible sources of the writings of Early Church Fathers on the internet is at CCEL, which is a Protestant site.

Abide,

As with all things Protestant in my experience the CF are available but not succintly, they are mixed in with a gamesh of all writings…

They can be found here with greater ease, rather than a search and peck looking for whatever…

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[TertiumQuid]

First, I didn’t suggest you did it to ‘provoke laughs’–that’s just the reaction your cite provoked in me; Second, the point is that Luther actually made many of these comments, and the poster to whom my post was directed, feigned ignorance about the statemets (like me, feigning ignorance about the inquisitions); Third, the mere existence of your cite, indicates the need to ‘explain away’ Luther’s back peddling.
VIVAT JESUS!

Rather than quibble about justifying your feelings and your harsh comments towards my website, I’ll once again point out the obvious: before you make such remarks on a public forum, you actually need to provide cogent examples to prove your opinion. Saying something and proving something are two very different things.

Here’s your chance to substantiate your comments. Give me one example from the link that was suggested to you by JonNC and prove what I wrote was an exercise in explaining away Luther’s back-peddling.

Remember, this is “Catholic Answers”. Here’s your chance to prove that your Catholic answer to someone like myself is meaningful and convincing, and a reason why Roman Catholic worldview is true. Simply saying “the mere existence of your cite, indicates the need to ‘explain away’ Luther’s back peddling” is neither meaningful or convincing. It’s simply an unsubstantiated opinion.

JS

 

[Rosinante]

No, this isn’t true. You’re showing your own ignorance here.

As just one example of my point, one of the most extensive, accessible sources of the writings of Early Church Fathers on the internet is at CCEL, which is a Protestant site.

I’m well aware of the protestant attempt to pirate the Church Fathers, particularly from the Calvinista camp (to which the author of "yeah but but but.dot com’ acknowleged he belongs). My comment however, was directed at the poster’s comment that citing this or that obscure source, carried no authority with pro’s.–that could refer to various personalities grouped within the rather broad groupoing known as Church Fathers–especially since they cover a period in excess of the existience of protestantism itself.

So, now, after 500 years of sola scriptura, every man his own pope, the wrongness of ‘traditions of men’…blah blah blah.,

…our seperated bretheren now seek to invoke the Church Fathers’ ‘traditions of men’, as not only authoratative, but in support of their own anti-Catholic views? Some how, these very same authority figures whose words carry addtional weight due to their cred amongs the Church…somehow, they were always arguing for sola scriptura, and never really respected Sacred Tradition…

That’s just laughable…even if not intended to be funny…

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[TertiumQuid]

I’m well aware of the protestant attempt to pirate the Church Fathers, particularly from the Calvinista camp (to which the author of "yeah but but but.dot com’ acknowleged he belongs).

“Calvinsta camp” appears to be meant in a mocking way. I note this based on the context of the comment from which it came, which mentions that those who are not Roman Catholic express views which are “just laughable…even if not intended to be funny.”

JS

 

[Rosinante]

Rather than quibble about justifying your feelings and your harsh comments towards my website, I’ll once again point out the obvious: before you make such remarks on a public forum, you actually need to provide cogent examples to prove your opinion. Saying something and proving something are two very different things.

Here’s your chance to substantiate your comments. Give me one example from the link that was suggested to you by JonNC and prove what I wrote was an exercise in explaining away Luther’s back-peddling.

Remember, this is “Catholic Answers”. Here’s your chance to prove that your Catholic answer to someone like myself is meaningful and convincing, and a reason why Roman Catholic worldview is true. Simply saying “the mere existence of your cite, indicates the need to ‘explain away’ Luther’s back peddling” is neither meaningful or convincing. It’s simply an unsubstantiated opinion.

JS

In re. the very first quote, ‘people are worse off than under the papacy’:

The quote is actually from a sermon: First Sunday in Advent, First Sermon- 1532, Matthew 21:1-9. It can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 5 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 17-24.

Hence your fielding the objection, or the quote, wasn’t denying that he said it; it came from a pretty credible source–you simply proceed to explain the quotes, in context–ergo, ‘yeah, but’–as in, ‘yeah he said it, but this is what he meant by it’.

Most of the other quotes follow the same pattern–and they of course are directed at hand-picked quotes.

Now, as for ‘convincing you that the Cat. worldview is true/correct’–please–as if you, or just about any pro. (let alone a Reformed Calvinista), is open to being convinced. If the good Lord Himself can’t penetrate the walls you’ve built around your heart with Truth, why would I pretend to be able to, over the medium of a message board? My wife is pro; I am intimately familiar with the stubborness of pro’s to adhere to their version of Christianity…their readiness to judge ‘who is Chirstian, and who is not’…and their steadfast adherence to their own interpretation of scripture, as being…

‘…the Gospel Truth.’

VIVAT JESUS!