The most intense debate between Catholic and Protestant:Mary the Mother of God

[callmeChris]

Ewtn’s own Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and Dr. Walter Martin go head to head in this old classic christian debate.

Topic: Mary

I think one needs to watch from beginning to end to understand the whole thing
Episode 1
Part one: youtube.com/watch?v=tClS31hNmII&feature=related
Part two: youtube.com/watch?v=K5ZpHODuMNY&feature=related
Part three: youtube.com/watch?v=hga2z0MfLMY&feature=related

But seriously, the host 70% of the time really didn’t take Fr. Pacwa seriously, but in the end in my opinion as we teenagers say that Fr. Pacwa ‘ownd’ that host

 

[CatholicOf94]

LOL, I must say Father sure looks good in that fluent brown hair
I’m guessing this was made in the 80’s before 1989 which was the year Dr.Walter Martin died. I wonder what excuse he gave God when he stood before him (and Mary of course)

 

[George_2007]

I wonder what excuse he gave God when he stood before him (and Mary of course)

This is, at best, really not constructive and at worst, it’s triumphalism and taking pleasure in someone else’s tragedy.

 

[FNDRB58]

That debate was very lame. It was basically two against one. And how about the visual aids that were put up which Martin recited one after the other? It was a bombardment of comments which Father Pachwa didn’t get a chance to comment on. He couldn’t possibly answer every single assertion Martin made because there were just too many in succession. Its like Martin and Akenberg got together and said, what can we do to overwhelm our opponent. That debate was a farce! Although Father Pachwa did his best, he simply wasn’t given time to respond to the plethora of Martin’s assertions. No wonder Father Pachwa doesn’t debate anymore…debates like this one really put a damper on the whole process which I believe can be very informative and strengthen the faith of many.

 

[godsent]

I found the debate to be one-sided.I detected a hint of mockery from the producer in his facial expressions and felt almost sorry for Fr Pacwa as he was trying to explain his side but wasn’t made to feel as though he was being listened too.

Thing is with catholicism,because the majority of our beliefs are deep rooted in scripture and nothing can be judged at face value with catholic beliefs,its sometimes hard to explain(or at least get somone to listen to what you have to say)so as too get your argument accross.Just my opinion though

 

[FNDRB58]

The problem with debating Bible only Chrisitians is that they don’t accept the fact that some of Jesus’ teachings, ergo Catholic beliefs, took some time to be fully understood by the early Christians who followed the apostles. Bible only Christians don’t allow for history and church development. The Trinity for example, though fully understood by the apostles had to be explained to their successors who weren’t yet disciples of the living Christ. Bible only Christians have little tolerance for anything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible. I wish more Catholic debaters would throw out there the verse that says that not all the books in the world could contain everything Jesus taught. (paraphrasing)

 

[NoelFitz]

Several issues are discussed here.

Catholics believe in the Bible and tradition.

Godsend said

Thing is with catholicism, because the majority of our beliefs are deep rooted in scripture and nothing can be judged at face value with catholic beliefs.

I wonder!

The doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is not really important. Our faith is in Jesus.

In the Council of Ephesus in 431 Mary was declared *theotokos *– God bearer.

As Wikipedia says

Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, translit. Theotókos) is the Greek title of Mary, the mother of Jesus used especially in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Its literal English translations include God-bearer and the one who gives birth to God. …The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human.

At issue really was who Jesus was, not who Mary was.

 

[FNDRB58]

Several issues are discussed here.

Catholics believe in the Bible and tradition.

Godsend said

I wonder!

The doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is not really important. Our faith is in Jesus.

In the Council of Ephesus in 431 Mary was declared *theotokos *– God bearer.

As Wikipedia says

At issue really was who Jesus was, not who Mary was.

I see that you are Catholic yet you believe that the doctrine of Mary as the Mother of God is not important? I see several problems with that way of thinking. First, you are not recognizing the authority of your Church since it infallibly taught this doctrine and therefore made it important. Second, you are not giving your Mother her due. It is because of her, by God’s grace, that our Savior came into being! Third, the doctrine accentuates the fact that Jesus IS God. Fourth, the doctrine edifies the belief that Mary was immaculately conceived because Mary wouldn’t sin against her own son who is God. Fifth, if you don’t have a solid belief in the Marian doctrines then you run the risk of losing the closest mediator (small “m”) to Christ that you have which is an incalculable detriment.
If I thought longer I am sure I could come up with more but everything the Church teaches is really important and our duty to God is obedience because Jesus is the Church.

 

[NoelFitz]

FNDR58,

Thanks for your reply.

Seeing Mary as the mother of God is important, but not too important. The essentials are that Jesus saved us and that we should love God and neighbor.

The Jewish Rabbi Hillel was asked to teach the whole of the law while standing on one foot. He said that we should love our neighbor as ourselves and that all else is commentary. Jesus expanded on this reminding us to love God and neighbor.

You say the doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is infallibly taught. Are you referring to the Council of Ephesus, where Mary was considered Theotokos? I believe Mary is the Mother of God, because her son was God. Jesus descended from many people. Not all of these lived excellent lives. The Immaculate Conception is a different doctrine from Mary being mother of God.

I believe in the Marian doctrines, but they are of less importance that other doctrines.

I would disagree with Jesus is the Church.

The Church is the people of God or the mystical body of Christ. Jesus is the head of the Church.

 

[FNDRB58]

FNDR58,

Thanks for your reply.

Seeing Mary as the mother of God is important, but not too important. The essentials are that Jesus saved us and that we should love God and neighbor.

The Jewish Rabbi Hillel was asked to teach the whole of the law while standing on one foot. He said that we should love our neighbor as ourselves and that all else is commentary. Jesus expanded on this reminding us to love God and neighbor.

You say the doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is infallibly taught. Are you referring to the Council of Ephesus, where Mary was considered Theotokos? I believe Mary is the Mother of God, because her son was God. Jesus descended from many people. Not all of these lived excellent lives. The Immaculate Conception is a different doctrine from Mary being mother of God.

I believe in the Marian doctrines, but they are of less importance that other doctrines.

I would disagree with Jesus is the Church.

The Church is the people of God or the mystical body of Christ. Jesus is the head of the Church.

I mispoke. Thank you for noticing. You mostly got it right. Jesus is the head and the people are the members of what is called the mystical body of the Church. Now we are on track.

You stated that the doctrine of Mary, Mother of God, “is not really important,” which is categorically incorrect. Your statement implies that who Mary is has little bearing on the story of our salvation. Her role as Mary, Mother of God, is critical and one should never diminish the meaning of this doctrine. If you are now saying that “it just isn’t as important as others,” then there may some truth in that if put in the proper context. Its just not something I would say. To me, everything in the Bible and every doctrine plays a critical role in our salvation and is therefore of great importance.

Also, if the two greatest commandments is to love your God with all your heart, sole, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, then yes, in this context everything else would be considered of less importance but not of little importance which, “is not really important” implies.

Yes, the doctrine was defined in the Council of Ephesus.

Thanks

 

[placido]

The doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is not really important. Our faith is in Jesus.
In the Council of Ephesus in 431 Mary was declared *theotokos *– God bearer.

If the doctrine id not important, then 200 bishops gathered in Ephesus only to discuss a trivial issue … is that what you mean?

placido

 

[placido]

Seeing Mary as the mother of God is important, but not too important.

Who says that that is “not too important”?

The essentials are that Jesus saved us and that we should love God and neighbor.

That is also very much essential to acknowledge the Incarnation, and I wonder how you can do that while keeping Mary out of the picture.

You say the doctrine of Mary as the mother of God is infallibly taught. Are you referring to the Council of Ephesus, where Mary was considered Theotokos? I believe Mary is the Mother of God, because her son was God. Jesus descended from many people. Not all of these lived excellent lives.

Are you implying all those “many people” should be considered “theotokos”? We all are descendents of “many people” but each one of us has a mother.

The Immaculate Conception is a different doctrine from Mary being mother of God.

Yes!

I believe in the Marian doctrines, but they are of less importance that other doctrines.

Who says that?

I would disagree with Jesus is the Church.

Your disagreement is with the Bible.

The Church is the people of God or the mystical body of Christ. Jesus is the head of the Church.

When you say the Church is the body of Christ you are saying the church is Christ … the same thing you are trying to deny. Or are now separating the body from the head and making two separate and different pieces of it?

placido

 

[brojeff66]

I love this thread. It has helped me in ways you’ll never know. I could almost be persuaded to become a Catholic except for the Marian Doctrines as they have been explained to me. I have had several questions about these things but my questions have been shot own as being argumentative.

I have not thought to be argumentative, I’m a Truth Seeker and Bible Believer. If I cannot find answers I need from Scripture I pray about it and wait for God to reveal things to me in other ways.

I’ll keep looking over the Forums trying to find answers, but I am still looking for someone who has an open-mind and a teacher’s heart to explain these things to me.

 

[NHInsider]

I think that NoelFitz is trying to remind us of the hierarchy of truths (Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 11). Thus the essential truth here is the Incarnation. All the Marian doctrines follow from it - and among them, some are more essential than others (essential meaning “of the essence,” not to suggest that others are discardable. So - the belief that Mary is the Mother of God* is directly essential to the understanding that Jesus is God (which was in fact what Ephesus said) - and the Incarnation is essential for salvation. The belief that Mary is Perpetually Virgin is equally true but not equally essential - a person could believe in the Incarnation without accepting belief in her Perpetual Virginity, and while they would miss out on much of the richness of faith by rejecting that truth, they could still receive the gift of salvation.

*Note that there are many who reject the use of the expression “Mother of God” who still hold to the truth of the Incarnation - but the reason for the declaration of the title was to reinforce the “True God” part of the Incarnation.

 

[brojeff66]

The belief that Mary is Perpetually Virgin is hard for me to understand. In the Gospel of St. Matthew chapter 13:54-56 it says that Mary had other sons and daughters. So were they also immaculately conceived? This is what I don’t understand.

Some here in the forums have stated that Mary had no other children. How is that possible unless Joseph possibly had another wife, before or after Mary? Help me understand this, Please.

 

[NoelFitz]

Thanks for all the replies to my posts.

In this discussion I am reminded of St Paul’s solid advice

and not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith (1 Tim 1:4).

But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless (Tit 3:9).

I will not reply to all the comments.

First of all it is important to distinguish between latria (the supreme worship of adoration given to God alone), dulia (the honor given to saints) and hyperdulia (the special honor given to Our Lady). There is a huge difference between latria and the others. Mary is a creature, God is a creator.

Ephesus was essentially about Jesus, who is true God and true man, as I have written before.

Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception, but it is not as vital as our belief in Jesus as Lord.

Placido wrote:

We all are descendents of “many people” but each one of us has a mother.

Of course each of us has a mother, and grand-parents, which is important to acknowledge today, the feast of Joachim and Anne.

I read

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoelFitz
I believe in the Marian doctrines, but they are of less importance that other doctrines.
Who says that?

Jesus Chrisat said this:

34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Mt 22:34-39).

 

[rwillenborg]

This topic always confuses me. I admit, I haven’t listened to the debate, so I think I will have to, and maybe this won’t be as confusing (or maybe it will be more so!)

If:
Jesus = God
and
Mary = Mother of Jesus

then

Mary = Mother of God

Right?

 

[NoelFitz]

Rwillenborg,

You wrote:

If:
Jesus = God
and
Mary = Mother of Jesus

then

Mary = Mother of God

Right?

Yes

 

[placido]

The belief that Mary is Perpetually Virgin is hard for me to understand.

That is unfortunate, but then, “hard to believe” does not mean “untrue”. Do you still remember that Jesus’ followers walked away in John 6 because what Jesus was teaching them was “hard to believe”?

In the Gospel of St. Matthew chapter 13:54-56 it says that Mary had other sons and daughters.

No. It does not say mary had other sons and daughters … just read the text again.

So were they also immaculately conceived? This is what I don’t understand.
Some here in the forums have stated that Mary had no other children. How is that possible unless Joseph possibly had another wife, before or after Mary? Help me understand this, Please.

The children referred to as Jesus’ brothers and sisters are not Mary’s children.

placido

 

[NHInsider]

The belief that Mary is Perpetually Virgin is hard for me to understand. In the Gospel of St. Matthew chapter 13:54-56 it says that Mary had other sons and daughters. So were they also immaculately conceived? This is what I don’t understand.

Some here in the forums have stated that Mary had no other children. How is that possible unless Joseph possibly had another wife, before or after Mary? Help me understand this, Please.

I hesitate to open this because it gets beaten to death about every other month, but I know when you’re new to the forums it’s hard to track down and plow through old discussions - so - short form:

1. The word translated as “brothers” throughout the NT does not mean only “other children of my parents.” It is the same word (adelphoi) used by Paul and John when they address the members of churches they write to. It is the same word that the Greek translation of Genesis uses for the relationship between Abraham and Lot. In other words, it can either mean “kinsman” or it can mean “intimate associate” in addition to (and in Scripture, more often than) “child of my parents.”
2. The list of names of “brothers” of the Lord yields at least four names (James, Jude, Joses and Simon). Assuming a fairly even male/female split in offspring (meaning 3-5 daughters to go with the 5 sons), Mary would have had to have been pregnant or nursing for 20 years or so - not an impossible situation, certainly, but it does make the description of the finding of the Child in the Temple when He was 12 notable by the apparent lack of any other siblings and the ability of Mary to make the journey on foot from Nazareth to Jerusalem.
3. several names listed as brothers of the Lord are also given with the names of their (other) parents named in the Scripture. Either there was a severe shortage of names in Galilee and several very-closely related families living in close proximity had the same number of children in the same age range and named them in the same order - or there are just not as many Jameses and Josephs as there would need to be to account for Mary having those four younger sons.
4. the fact that Jesus asked His best friend to take in His mother after His death is not consistent with her having any other living offspring, much less a whole bunch of them.
5. there is no historical record (or traditionally named tomb) of anyone in the first several centuries of the faith claiming to be a descendant of Mary or of any sibling of Jesus
6. the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 does not imply a change “after” - there are numerous examples in Scripture where it clearly cannot imply such a change

Now - #1 and #6 are simple refutations of a position that Mary and Joseph must have had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. They obvious don’t prove that they didn’t. And 2-5 are circumstantial and don’t prove it either. In fact, there is no “proof” of the Perpetual Virginity. It is something we believe because it is the teaching of the Church.

There are LOTS of passages that people cite as being references to or support for the idea that Mary might have been a vowed virgin and that Joseph might have been chosen for her as a protectorate spouse or might have been willing to remain chaste as a sacrifice in support of the Messiah. These explore connections with Eve, with the Ark of the Covenant, and with assorted Messianic prophecies. They include suggestions that Mary would have been committing adultery if she had a sexual relationship with Joseph, since her first Spouse could never die, and that Joseph would never have suggested such a thing. If you accept the teaching of the Church, these are really illuminating. If you don’t, they are easy to ignore.

There is a non-canonical book called the Protoevangelium of James that says that Joseph was a widower with children when he was espoused to Mary. Many people accept that as an explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord. I am more inclined to the opinion that they are the children of Mary the wife of Cleopas and of Salome, and therefore fist-cousins of the Lord.

I hope that helps?