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

[nickybr38]

So’s your old man.

Guess I should just leave the forum at this point? I find that post really offensive and hurtful. What does it add to the discussion?

Seriously, there should be an “ignore” function on this board. Then these useless posts wouldn’t get in the way.

I agree with you on that one. It may be ‘truth’ to a Catholic, but it is offensive and adds nothing to the debate. What’s up with that?

But, on a helpful note, I’m fairly certain there IS an ignore option (you’d have to check out the help feature to learn about that) but I know for sure there is a report button. Feel free to report posts you find offensive.

Don’t leave the forum. Some people are just rude, others aren’t. You’ll find many people on this forum who are very helpful and respectful. Unfortunately the topic of Mary tends to incite the worst behavior from some people (something which I find rather amusing. How does the perfect woman inspire so many people to behave so terribly?).

 

[1holycatholic]

I agree with you on that one. It may be ‘truth’ to a Catholic, but it is offensive and adds nothing to the debate. What’s up with that?

But, on a helpful note, I’m fairly certain there IS an ignore option (you’d have to check out the help feature to learn about that) but I know for sure there is a report button. Feel free to report posts you find offensive.

Don’t leave the forum. Some people are just rude, others aren’t. You’ll find many people on this forum who are very helpful and respectful. Unfortunately the topic of Mary tends to incite the worst behavior from some people (something which I find rather amusing. How does the perfect woman inspire so many people to behave so terribly?).

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15.) There is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Claims to the contrary, even in passing are contrary to the faith. Nobody gets a pass on untruth. It is not charity to confirm someone in their error.

Truth for Catholics is truth for everyone.

 

[Sandalwood]

So’s your old man.

Guess I should just leave the forum at this point? I find that post really offensive and hurtful. What does it add to the discussion?

Seriously, there should be an “ignore” function on this board. Then these useless posts wouldn’t get in the way.

there IS an ignore button (it’s beautiful ) look under “profile” on the toolbar above. under “control panel” it says “edit ignore list”. you simply put the persons user name and then their posts are hidden from you!

 

[nickybr38]

The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15.) There is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Claims to the contrary, even in passing are contrary to the faith. Nobody gets a pass on untruth. It is not charity to confirm someone in their error.

Truth for Catholics is truth for everyone.

Absolutely, but you don’t go up to a Muslim and tell them Mohammad is a false prophet. In the same way it is NOT charitable to go up to a Protestant and inform them their church is not a church. All you do by voicing such inflammatory comments is push people away and close their ears.

Not everyone is ready for truth.

 

[1holycatholic]

Absolutely, but you don’t go up to a Muslim and tell them Mohammad is a false prophet. In the same way it is NOT charitable to go up to a Protestant and inform them their church is not a church. All you do by voicing such inflammatory comments is push people away and close their ears.

Not everyone is ready for truth.

Muslims will not hesitate to tell you that Jesus is not God.

They’re wrong, but they aren’t being uncharitable in declaring what they believe. It would be uncharitable for them not to declare it.

 

[Chris258]

It still seems intellectually awkward to say Mother of God, but I’d never say someone was wrong for using that term. If I was going to add qualifiers to her name, I’d say something more along the lines of Mother of Christ. I think that’s a little more accurate, and less confusing to a non-Catholic.

Perhaps you missed it in the posts since then. I’d like to know what you think of my explanation of the Chalcedonian position in Post #243.

There is no problem with the title Mother of Christ per se. The problem is when one wishes to use Mother of Christ rather than Mother of God as Nestorius did. And his reasoning was almost exactly the same as yours: “Mary is not older than God, and she is not the source of the Divine and Eternal, so we shouldn’t call her that.”

However, this betrays an impoverished view of the Incarnation. It is as if one is saying that because the eternal and immutable Word took to itself a full human nature, somehow the Word has become less divine, less God and is now “Jesus Christ”.

It also undermines the unity of the Son of God’s person. Mary did not give birth to a human nature, she gave birth to a person. We do not say that a mother gives birth only to that which she contributes to her child and not that which she does not contribute, we say she gives birth to the entire person of the child. It is not the “Mother” half of the title that is being emphasized by the Chalcedonians, it is the “of God” half. The question is ultimately whether God Himself truly experiences what it means to be human, including birth and being cared for, in the person of Jesus Christ. Again, I encourage you to look at my Post #243 and share your thoughts.

I also point out that the doctrine of the hypostatic union and Mary’s title as Theotokos have been a formal part of Christian orthodoxy since the Council of Chalcedon. This includes the communities which emerged from the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other Reformers’ followers all firmly upheld the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God. It is only some centuries down the road that some Protestants have begun to repeat Nestorius’ mistake, due to the many splinterings of Protestantism and a lowered awareness of church history in many of those communities.

 

[nickybr38]

Muslims will not hesitate to tell you that Jesus is not God.

They’re wrong, but they aren’t being uncharitable in declaring what they believe. It would be uncharitable for them not to declare it.

Perhaps a wrong example then.

But I have to tell you I’m glad I didn’t run into many Catholics when I was still Protestant. I’m sure this kind of attitude would have driven me even further from the Church (in fact it was this attitude: We are RIGHT, you are WRONG and lesser than us - really… telling someone their church isn’t a church!!!-, which kept me from considering the ‘truth’ of the Church sooner). Whether or not that’s ‘right’, THAT is truth.

 

[1holycatholic]

Perhaps a wrong example then.

But I have to tell you I’m glad I didn’t run into many Catholics when I was still Protestant. I’m sure this kind of attitude would have driven me even further from the Church (in fact it was this attitude: We are RIGHT, you are WRONG and lesser than us - really… telling someone their church isn’t a church!!!-, which kept me from considering the ‘truth’ of the Church sooner). Whether or not that’s ‘right’, THAT is truth.

The 30,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming to be “church” yet all teaching different truths from the same book. The very same book states that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. There can’t be contradictory truths. An honest Protestant would have to claim that their denomination (or non-denomination ) is the only true church and that all others that don’t teach exactly what they teach are not the “church.”

 

[nickybr38]

The 30,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming to be “church” yet all teaching different truths from the same book. The very same book states that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. There can’t be contradictory truths. An honest Protestant would have to claim that their denomination (or non-denomination ) is the only true church and that all others that don’t teach exactly what they teach are not the “church.”

See, now, I think this is a far better way to word that particular objection.

They are not THE Church, that does not mean they are not A church.

Haha. All this arguing over words eh?

 

[1holycatholic]

See, now, I think this is a far better way to word that particular objection.

They are not THE Church, that does not mean they are not A church.

Haha. All this arguing over words eh?

There is only one Church. Stating otherwise is contrary to the deposit of faith. Certainly there can be more than one particular church (different particular parish) or more than one sui juris church, but they are all part of the one Church.

Dominus Iesus
17) Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.
…

 

[nickybr38]

There is only one Church. Stating otherwise is contrary to the deposit of faith. Certainly there can be more than one particular church (different particular parish) or more than one sui juris church, but they are all part of the one Church.

Dominus Iesus
17) Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.
…

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

A church is:
–noun
1.
a building for public Christian worship.

So… by saying Protestant churches are not A church, you are then saying all Protestants are not Christian? Is that it?

 

[1holycatholic]

Dictionary.com
A church is:
–noun
1.
a building for public Christian worship.

So… by saying Protestant churches are not A church, you are then saying all Protestants are not Christian? Is that it?

No. I am not saying that at all. If they are validly baptized they’re Christian.

 

[nickybr38]

No. I am not saying that at all. If they are validly baptized they’re Christian.

Right. So if they’re Christian and they are gathering together to worship God… how are they NOT A church?

I recognize they are not THE Church, but how are they not A church?

 

[1holycatholic]

Right. So if they’re Christian and they are gathering together to worship God… how are they NOT A church?

I recognize they are not THE Church, but how are they not A church?

Read Dominus Iesus.

 

[PLeeD]

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense…

BTW, I didn’t say “my Church”, I said “my church”. My church is most definitely a church.

I’m not here to hair-split word definitions. I haven’t used the ignore list yet, but it’s nice to know it’s there

No. I am not saying that at all. If they are validly baptized they’re Christian.

Can you point me toward something that defines a valid baptism?

 

[1holycatholic]

Can you point me toward something that defines a valid baptism?

Sacraments require valid matter, form and intent.

CCC
1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head.
1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again.

 

[PLeeD]

…performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water.

Is “triple” immersion a reference to the Trinity? Or, does it mean the person is submerged three separate times?

Edit: Re-reading it, it’s clear that the person is to be submerged three separate times. Why is once not enough?

 

[Chris258]

Is “triple” immersion a reference to the Trinity? Or, does it mean the person is submerged three separate times?

Edit: Re-reading it, it’s clear that the person is to be submerged three separate times. Why is once not enough?

This thread is seriously getting derailed now. Ought we to return to the topic at hand?

To quickly answer your question: the triple-immersion is not an essential part of Baptism. As the CCC states, it is the most expressive way of baptizing. It’s not a matter of valid or invalid when we’re talking about triple-immersion.

Even immersion is not essential for Baptism to be valid, as most people being baptized by the Catholic Church, including adults, are baptized by pouring water over the head (usually three times “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”). All the Catholic Church deems necessary for a valid baptism is water, a human being, and the intent to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, with that formula being an essential part of the sacrament, i.e. the Church is usually quite suspicious about any form of Baptism that deviates from it, like the Oneness Pentecostals’ baptism “in the name of the Lord Jesus”. As Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity, and their baptismal form is consequently pseudo-Christian, the Catholic Church does not accept their baptisms as valid, and upon entrance into the Catholic Church, such a person would be baptized with the proper formula.

That was actually my experience.

 

[nickybr38]

Haha. It’s so hard to keep threads on topic. So much gets brought up.

That said, last Sunday was the Feast of…?

Our priest made a cute joke. The punchline was basically that Protestants think the Assumption of Mary is Catholic’s assuming Mary made it to heaven.

 

[FNDRB58]

No, protestants don’t accept that and that is not the Catholic understanding either. Protestants understand Mary as the mother of Jesus human nature and not His divine nature. Catholics understand Mary not as the mother of a nature but the mother of a person. A person who just so happens to have two natures. The hypostatic union is a mysteryof faith which we humans are not capable of fully understanding. The best way to do it, I think, is to liken it to human conception. A human baby is the product of DNA from both mother and father. The mother only contributes half of the baby’s DNA but she is considered to be the mother of the whole baby and not just the mother of her part of the DNA. Likewise with the Blessed Virgin, she contributed all of the human nature which was joined to the Divine nature which always existed to form a baby that was both God and man. She is, therefore, the mother of the whole person and that person is God. The early Church made this statement of Theotokos because ofthe heresy of dualism where Jesus was being split into two persons one human and one divine. The Dualist even went so far as to say the human Jesus committed sin. Today we see the protestant world repeating what the dualist did 1700=1800 years ago; trying to split Jesus into two. Like the Nestorians they want to say she is the mother of Jesus, The Nestorians used the word Christotokos to say the same thing. That may seem like much to do about nothing but it has far reaching implications especially when it comes to the cross. Because if only the human natureof Jesus died then we are not saved. Salvation comes only if the human person of Jesus dies on the cross. So it is not much to do about nothing; it is much to do about everything.

You took my comments out of context. My mother is the mother of my human nature because she gave birth to me and is the mother of me. If we do not say that Mary is the mother of Christ who has a human and divine nature then there can be no belief that she is the Mother of God.
Of course Mary is the mother of a person, Christ, who has two natures. It is in this context that I stated she is the mother of his natures because she is fully his mother and He has two natures. That is indeed Catholic teaching.

If all one says is that Mary is the mother of a nature then obviously that is incorrect.

Your analogy isn’t the best one because the DNA can be separated into parts where the two natures are not separated into parts. Jesus is wholy human and wholy divine.

Don’t the Anglicans/Epicsocals and the Lutherans believe as we do on this point? I don’t really know.