Scripture and Mary

[teachccd]

Teach, in all fairness, you have protestants on here telling you what they believe. Maybe you are confused about what you are hearing from your friends. Do you think these protestants on this board are lying about their beliefs? It just sounds almost as if you’re dismissing their beliefs as “not protestant” or something. I’m confused a little here, but it sounded a little uncharitable. As Catholics we must remember to be charitable to our Christian brothers and sisters. Especially in apologetics, as I’m sure you know.

Have you been reading the thread?? In all fairness you need to read the thread before telling me what it is that I should do. My recent posts have been in dialogue with one individual who says that all protestants believe the same thing. **If **he/she did not hear something from a Protestant then I just simply misunderstood.

My friend, charity is exactly what this is all about. I know that you know absolutely nothing about me as is obvious by your post. I am still dialoguing with a Jehovah’s Witness friend of mine for over eight years now. We are still friends and call each other often. Many of my friends are Protestant and realize how charitible I am without undermining our faith. I don’t think that they would be hanging around me if I’m characterized the way you stated. I NEVER said that anyone here is lying about their beliefs. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and figure that you just didn’t read the thread.

Isn’t it amazing how many times you’ve probably said something to someone and come across looking as I did to you???

God Bless…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

I don’t think so. I think she was special because she had the priveledge of carrying Christ in her womb. I don’t think it has anything to do with JOseph touching her after Christ left her womb.

Being that you are Catholic, we all know why Mary is honored and venerated in our faith. I was directing this question to Ginger2 who has been one of the only posters for sometime. I didn’t know anyone else was still here.There were a couple of posters yesterday but they have not responded to Ginger2. I do hope that more folks join back here as this is a most important topic. Thank you for being here and I hope that you stay to share the Catholic viewpoint with our Protestant friends…God Bless…teachccd

 

[Ginger2]

So then, if you are understanding that the person of Jesus Christ is fully God and man and you cannot separate these natures it would seem feasible to call Mary the Mother of God as has been done for centuries…

No. Mary is the mother of Jesus. She is not the mother of God. (nor is she His wife)

You stated the the Virgin Mary is (she lives in heaven now) blessed above all women. Why? What makes her so special? Could her being that special allow her to devote her womb to God and not conceive additional children?? Your thoughts…

This question is far too deep for me to get into today. I don’t care to devote that much time in front of my PC. But I will say that having children with her husband Joseph would not have made any difference. Mary would still be blessed among women and Jesus would still be God incarnate - Savior to the world.

Do you refer to her as the Blessed Virgin Mary as you acknowledged her as being??

Yes, quite frequently.

 

[teachccd]

No. Mary is the mother of Jesus. She is not the mother of God. (nor is she His wife)

Mary would still be blessed among women and Jesus would still be God incarnate - Savior to the world.

.

Who said that Mary is Jesus’ wife??

Jesus is God. Mary is His mother.This you state above… But you will insist that Mary is not the Mother of God…

 

[boppaid]

Have you been reading the thread??

yes

In all fairness you need to read the thread before telling me what it is that I should do. My recent posts have been in dialogue with one individual who says that all protestants believe the same thing. **If **he/she did not hear something from a Protestant then I just simply misunderstood.

I am not really trying to tell you what to do. I know that sometimes when we start debating & discussing our beliefs, we got a little hot, and it sounded like you were going there. You seemed to quickly dismiss and discredit what posters are say they believe. Like you know what they believe better than they do. Maybe I am mistaken, and if so, I’m sorry. But here’s where I’m getting this idea from. Ginger said:

n this forum it is common place. Some Catholics go as far as to tell me what I’ve explained is not what I believe. I think I know what I believe, so what they must be wrong.about what they think I believe.

Unfortunately, no matter how often I explain one of these terms, the Catholics continue to apply their definition to me

To which you replied:

Sorry to move off topic but I am responding to your claims that I cannot understand what Protestants say. I hold to exactly what I’ve said .

I didn’t think she was discounting what your friends have told you. I think Ginger was simply pointing out that she is a protestant and she does not believe everything your friends told you. And, quite likely all the protestants she knows believe differently than what your friends believe.

Let’s face it: under the umbrella of protestantism, there are many varying beliefs. Just like under the umbrella of Catholicism. Look at the disagreement of the many bishops ! Just like protestants look to the bible as the sole rule of authority, and the Catholics look to the Magisterium, there are dissenters. We must remember that.

My friend, charity is exactly what this is all about. I know that you know absolutely nothing about me as is obvious by your post. I am still dialoguing with a Jehovah’s Witness friend of mine for over eight years now. We are still friends and call each other often. Many of my friends are Protestant and realize how charitible I am without undermining our faith.

I guess these are the quotes I thought sounded uncharitable (and I could almost hear both a sarcastic, condesending and almost histronic tone):

Show me a Scripture. Show me a Scripture. Show me a Scripture that says that there were to be 27 books in the New Testament…WHAT?? The Church acknowledged that?? No way! Jesus left us a Bible when He ascended into heaven. WHAT???There was no Bible when Jesus ascended. WHAT DID HIS FOLLOWERS FOLLOW???

Oh My. Christians with no New Testament. Sola Non- Scriptura. A bunch of first century Christians making up their own distorted and false doctrines. WHAT?? And the Bible came from this??

I’m SOOOOOOOOOO Confused. We are to follow a Bible that came from What, When, Where and Who??

Show me a Scripture that says that the Bible is inspired. WHAT???The Book of Mormon says that it’s inspired???Now what do we do?? No authoritative Church and all kinds of books claiming inspiration. What about the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses?? It says that it’s inspired and in there John 1:1 it says that the Word was “a god”. What to do now???

I’m so glad that I’m Catholic. What a confused separated crowd.

…sorry, nice try!

I guess that I’m ditsy and never understood a thing that they said.

Hmmm…O.K. Whatever.

Anyway, I may have misinterpreted your tone, and the reason I’m making so many quotes above is not to throw them in your face, but to show you why I felt you were starting to be a little uncharitable. As an apologist, I know you are very aware of the danger of this to your own heart as well. If you tone was, indeed, sarcastic or condesending, I’m sure we can agree that’s uncharitable. As a Christian sister, I wanted to let you know. There was no ill intent.

Isn’t it amazing how many times you’ve probably said something to someone and come across looking as I did to you???

Yes, and this may be one such time.

I do hope that more folks join back here as this is a most important topic. Thank you for being here and I hope that you stay to share the Catholic viewpoint with our Protestant friends…God Bless…

Thank you!

 

[epostle]

The term “mother of God” has nothing to do with Mary being the mother of God the Father. That is absurd. Nowhere in 2000 years of Catholic teaching is this ever been taught. “Mother of God” is a sloppy English translation of the Greek “Theotokos” or God-bearer. To deny that God was actually in Mary’s womb is tantamount to denying God came in the flesh, which is the spirit of the anti-Christ. Not even Protestants think this. The real question, I think, is whether or not Jesus is a Person. Women give birth to persons. This is not a startling revelation. Women do not give birth to 2 separate natures when a child is born. The child is a person born of her mother.

“Theotokos”, or, mother of God, came about to defend the Trinity against the heresiarch Nestorius, who claimed what evangelicals claim today. (though they don’t admit it). If Mary just gave birth to the human part of Jesus, then Jesus must, by logical default, have 2 separate natures, bringing in to question the very substance of the Incarnation.

“Theotokos” was developed not for Mary’s sake, but came about as a necessary biproduct in the defence of the Incarnation from heresy. This problem was dealt with at the council of Ephesus, and others. “Mother of God” is not so much about Mary, it’s more about Jesus, as all Marian doctrines are. Those who misunderstand Marian teachings always argue about Mary in the absence of Jesus, and too often Catholics get caught up in the mind set. To defend Mary, you have to explain who Jesus is.

Mariology did not become a central concern in systematic theology until the Nestorian controversy where the title “Christotokos” was proposed instead of “Theotokos.” It was after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD realized that the Marian Title “Theotokos” was crucial to an orthodox Christology that the importance of the BVM in dogmatics was recognized. From that time onwards, an orthodox Mariology has been the first line of defense to an orthodox Christology.

 

[Ginger2]

Who said that Mary is Jesus’ wife??

Oops, I may have confused this with another thread about Mary where a Catholic said Mary is God’s wife.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Oops, I may have confused this with another thread about Mary where a Catholic said Mary is God’s wife.

Symbolic speaking in Catholic theology, Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. This is how Catholic view Mary theologically.

Mary is the Daughter of God, the Father, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and the Mother of Jesus Christ.

 

[Ginger2]

The term “mother of God” has nothing to do with Mary being the mother of God the Father. That is absurd. Nowhere in 2000 years of Catholic teaching is this ever been taught. “Mother of God” is a sloppy English translation of the Greek “Theotokos” or God-bearer. To deny that God was actually in Mary’s womb is tantamount to denying God came in the flesh, which is the spirit of the anti-Christ. Not even Protestants think this. The real question, I think, is whether or not Jesus is a Person. Women give birth to persons. This is not a startling revelation. Women do not give birth to 2 separate natures when a child is born. The child is a person born of her mother.

“Theotokos”, or, mother of God, came about to defend the Trinity against the heresiarch Nestorius, who claimed what evangelicals claim today. (though they don’t admit it). If Mary just gave birth to the human part of Jesus, then Jesus must, by logical default, have 2 separate natures, bringing in to question the very substance of the Incarnation.

“Theotokos” was developed not for Mary’s sake, but came about as a necessary biproduct in the defence of the Incarnation from heresy. This problem was dealt with at the council of Ephesus, and others. “Mother of God” is not so much about Mary, it’s more about Jesus, as all Marian doctrines are. Those who misunderstand Marian teachings always argue about Mary in the absence of Jesus, and too often Catholics get caught up in the mind set. To defend Mary, you have to explain who Jesus is.

Mariology did not become a central concern in systematic theology until the Nestorian controversy where the title “Christotokos” was proposed instead of “Theotokos.” It was after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD realized that the Marian Title “Theotokos” was crucial to an orthodox Christology that the importance of the BVM in dogmatics was recognized. From that time onwards, an orthodox Mariology has been the first line of defense to an orthodox Christology.

We agree!!!

I think that’s a good note to end on.

So Merry CHRISTmas to all of you. May God bless and keep you in the new year and always.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Janet S

Well if you think this list is a joke, then refute it. I will give you proof of several and you said you would like to see me give proof of even one.

Immersion of Infants who are dying but considered sinless. 200 A.D. Tertullian V 12
(Tertullian,On Baptism,18 (A.D. 200/206),in ANF,III:678)

North Africa practicing infant baptism can be found here: “Letter of Cyprian and his Colleagues to Fidus,” 64 (or 59), 2 (AD 251-252):

Forbidding marriage of priests was introduced at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. but was rejected, just as I said.

Praying to Mary and the Saints was started in 379 A.D. by Ephraim Syrus. You will find it listed under the prayers of Ephraim Syrus.

In 385 A.D., the first prohibition of clerical marriage came from the Roman Church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona.

389 A.D. Mariolatry began with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

Once saved always saved came from Augustine XII 9, 400 A.D.

Infant baptism of all infants by immersion was commanded by the Council of Mela.

It was the Council of Ephesus that first applied the exhalation of Mary as “Mother of God.”

Gregory the Great gave the doctrine of Purgatory from the Apocrypha. 593 A.D.

In 600 A.D., Gregory I was the first to use Latin in Worship.

The first person to be considered the ‘Universal Bishop” was Boniface III, by a decree of the Emperor Phocas in 607 A.D.

The worshiping of images and statues was approved at the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D.

Pope John XV was the one who canonized dead saints in 995 A.D.

Pope Gregory VII in 1079 declared that priests, bishops and presbyters must be celibate in 1079.

It was Pope Innocent III, at the fourth Lateran Council who claimed Transubstantiation in 1215 A.D.

At the same time in 1215 A.D. Pope Innocent also instituted the Auricular Confession of sins to priests at the same Lateran Council.

In 1311 A.D., Baptism by sprinkling was accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick at the Council of Ravenna.

Purgatory was considered a Dogma by the Council of Florence in 1439 A.D.

The Apocryphal books were added to the Roman Catholic Bible in 1545 at the Council of Trent.

1870 A.D., it was the Vatican Council that declared the pope was infallible.

The Assumption of the body of Mary into heaven shortly after her death was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in 1950 A.D.

In 1954, Pope Pius XII also proclaimed that Mary came as the “Immaculate Conception.”

It was only in 1996 that Pope John Paul II, gave Catholics permission to believe in evolution.

Now is there any of that not true? You will find everything if you will simply check the references. I forgot to mention Limbo. I remember when the pope reversed that, not too many years ago.

 

[Old_Scholar]

---

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” from St Paul in the 1st century.

---

This is simply another case of the Roman Catholics changing the Scriptures to say what they want it to say.

Traditions" here does not refer in any manner to human traditions, but to* the authentic teachings of the apostles as handed down orally, by them only, before the New Testament was available*. Paul’s use of yours" in this verse is not epistolary, but has reference to the apostles of Christ.

No Scripture written since 100 A.D. has been excepted for the canon, even by the Catholic Church. Nothing said or proclaimed by a mere man has any authority at all, when it deviates from the written Scriptures. When the last apostle died, then no inspired writings were ever made.

The apostles taught doctrines and duties that we must adhere to but we have no certain evidence of any thing delivered by them more than what we find contained in the holy Scriptures.

When it pertains to morals or faith, the Scripture is the only authority we have. None of the later writers are able to give us anything to add to the Bible as we have it now and had it then.

If it isn’t in Scripture, then it is genuine, and can not be trusted. To add to or detract from Scripture is a sin.

 

[Old_Scholar]

---

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” from St Paul in the 1st century.

---

This is simply another case of the Roman Catholics changing the Scriptures to say what they want it to say.

Traditions" here does not refer in any manner to human traditions, but to* the authentic teachings of the apostles as handed down orally, by them only, before the New Testament was available*. Paul’s use of yours" in this verse is not epistolary, but has reference to the apostles of Christ.

No Scripture written since 100 A.D. has been excepted for the canon, even by the Catholic Church. Nothing said or proclaimed by a mere man has any authority at all, when it deviates from the written Scriptures. When the last apostle died, then no inspired writings were ever made.

The apostles taught doctrines and duties that we must adhere to but we have no certain evidence of any thing delivered by them more than what we find contained in the holy Scriptures.

When it pertains to morals or faith, the Scripture is the only authority we have. None of the later writers are able to give us anything to add to the Bible as we have it now and had it then.

If it isn’t in Scripture, then it is genuine, and can not be trusted. To add to or detract from Scripture is a sin.

 

[SoonerforChrist]

It is really this simple. God is Father, Son and, Holy Spirit.

Mary has something unique with God, that no other person on this earth past, present, or future will be able to claim. She is mother of Jesus Christ the Son, the daughter of God the Father, and spouse of the Holy Spirit.

…blessed art thou among women… in deed.

 

[SoonerforChrist]

---

This is simply another case of the Roman Catholics changing the Scriptures to say what they want it to say.

Traditions" here does not refer in any manner to human traditions, but to* the authentic teachings of the apostles as handed down orally, by them only, before the New Testament was available*. Paul’s use of yours" in this verse is not epistolary, but has reference to the apostles of Christ.

No Scripture written since 100 A.D. has been excepted for the canon, even by the Catholic Church. Nothing said or proclaimed by a mere man has any authority at all, when it deviates from the written Scriptures. When the last apostle died, then no inspired writings were ever made.

The apostles taught doctrines and duties that we must adhere to but we have no certain evidence of any thing delivered by them more than what we find contained in the holy Scriptures.

When it pertains to morals or faith, the Scripture is the only authority we have. None of the later writers are able to give us anything to add to the Bible as we have it now and had it then.

If it isn’t in Scripture, then it is genuine, and can not be trusted. To add to or detract from Scripture is a sin.

So there are no writings from the earliest Christians and what they believed that can be trusted? I disagree with you.

 

[Old_Scholar]

teachccd

Oh and another portrayal of ignorance of Catholic theology on your part: Limbo was always held as a theological opinion. It was never accepted as doctrine. It is perfectly acceptable to change opinion but not doctrine.

I could go through your bogus list with individual responses but why shame you further. You need a lot of education regarding Catholicism before you continue to embarrass yourself.

Isn’t this forum just for that? Going through responses one by one? Frankly I don’t think you have any defense for what I have posted, or else you would have already given it.

In the case of Limbus Infantium, you need to do a little reading. Go to:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Part Two
Section Two
Chapter One
Article 1
The Sacrament of Baptism
Part V
1257 - 1261

You can read all about the Catechism there. By the way, when the Pope abolished the doctrine, he said: “I never did believe in it anyhow.”

 

[Old_Scholar]

teachccd

Now some Protestant made up doctrines not found in scripture:

Once saved always saved.

Sinners prayer. Billy Graham not Catholic. More Ignorance…

Altar call.

Accept Christ as my personal Lord and savior.

Bible Only.

Jesus and me only, no religion just Jesus (Totally unscriptural)

Guaranteed salvation. (Cannot choose to reject Christ)

I see you know nothing about Protetants. There isn’t a single doctrine there. The only thing you listed there at all pertaining to faith is that you need to have Jesus Christ as your personal saviour and that is very Scriptural. It is also the only way to salvation. Even Mary recognized Christ as her personal Saviour. She referred to Him as her Saviour.

But then I doubt if you have ever read that Scripture.

 

[SoonerforChrist]

teachccd

I see you know nothing about Protetants. There isn’t a single doctrine there. The only thing you listed there at all pertaining to faith is that you need to have Jesus Christ as your personal saviour and that is very Scriptural. It is also the only way to salvation. Even Mary recognized Christ as her personal Saviour. She referred to Him as her Saviour.

But then I doubt if you have ever read that Scripture.

Once Saved Always Saved is not a doctrine?

Doctrine
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

 

[teachccd]

yes

I am not really trying to tell you what to do. I know that sometimes when we start debating & discussing our beliefs, we got a little hot, and it sounded like you were going there. You seemed to quickly dismiss and discredit what posters are say they believe. Like you know what they believe better than they do. Maybe I am mistaken, and if so, I’m sorry. But here’s where I’m getting this idea from. Ginger said:

To which you replied:

I didn’t think she was discounting what your friends have told you. I think Ginger was simply pointing out that she is a protestant and she does not believe everything your friends told you. And, quite likely all the protestants she knows believe differently than what your friends believe.

Let’s face it: under the umbrella of protestantism, there are many varying beliefs. Just like under the umbrella of Catholicism. Look at the disagreement of the many bishops ! Just like protestants look to the bible as the sole rule of authority, and the Catholics look to the Magisterium, there are dissenters. We must remember that.

I guess these are the quotes I thought sounded uncharitable (and I could almost hear both a sarcastic, condesending and almost histronic tone):

Anyway, I may have misinterpreted your tone, and the reason I’m making so many quotes above is not to throw them in your face, but to show you why I felt you were starting to be a little uncharitable. As an apologist, I know you are very aware of the danger of this to your own heart as well. If you tone was, indeed, sarcastic or condesending, I’m sure we can agree that’s uncharitable. As a Christian sister, I wanted to let you know. There was no ill intent.

Yes, and this may be one such time.

Thank you!

I stand reprimanded!! But you did take my replies out of context and even to whom they were directed. But the good news is…this thread is moving again!!

I’m sorry that you took my comments as uncharitable. All of those who know me personally would disagree but that’s what happens in forums since there is no facial expressions. I reply in the light of how the conversation is at hand and to whom I am directing my responses. I need not continue to explain myself but I am very fervent in my faith and sometimes that does come off as being brazen…Thank you for keeping me in check and God Bless you…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Oops, I may have confused this with another thread about Mary where a Catholic said Mary is God’s wife.

A Catholic said that Mary is God’s wife…??? That’s it. I’m checking out the Islamic faith…

 

[Old_Scholar]

'“This is another example of Catholics thinking Protestants believe something different than what we actually believe. Sola Scripture is not “Bible Only” As a matter of fact the Catholic claim about Martin Luther inventing SS is false. ML never said it.”

Really??? Then why don’t you tell me a little more about this.

Martin Luther believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

That he did state.

Martin Luther started the Protestant “Reformation”.

Why don’t Protestants believe in what Martin Luther believed?? Martin Luther never mentioned Sola Scriptura?? Really…

I’m so glad that I’m Catholic. What a confused separated crowd.

**Actually it was the Catholic leaders of the first 3 centuries(and still many more later) who declared Sola Scriptura. They all claimed that if tradition conflicted with Scripture or could not be found in Scripture, then it was false.

That was long before any Protestants. It was the Catholics who came later that introduced heresy and pagan rites into the church that started sola ecclesia**. Many Catholics still believe in *Prima Scriptura *as well.

You really should read the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Clement, Papais, Mathetes, Justin Martyn, Irenæus, and many writers of the next couple of centuries. They never wrote that tradition trumped Scripture but instead said tradition had to be supported by Scripture or else it was invalid.