The Quadrinity

[Wil_Peregrin]

Mr. Santa,
I hereby expose some of my vast ignorance.

How can Mary Theotokos (Godbearer, not mother of God) be antecedant to and generative of the infinite uncreated? And where is that taught?

She is rightly declared Theotokos, against the Arians, Nestorians and their modern recapitulators, but Mother of the Ancient of Days, the “I Am” “He Who Causes To Be”? Do you have a created before, both onotologically and chronologically, the uncreate?

By dogma, does the Catholic Church mean -must believe in order to be saved-? So that if one isn’t persuaded that he has yet seen sufficient historiography of the assension of Mary to be certain of it, or who fears that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception wars against the Incarnation, is therefore damned to Hell, even though the Roman Magisterium says that such a baptised person is in real, though imperfect communion with Rome?

Person - prosopon - locus of self-awareness? Essense sounds in English like substance, which miscommunication separated the East from the Greek from the West, between Aramaic, Greek and Latin.

The chordata (except maybe fish) along with humans were given the nephesh hayyah, the breath of life, sometimes translated psyche. I suspect that doing a word-for-word to Latin can misappropriate a semantic shift and cause misunderstanding. While non-human animals do not bear the Imago Dei, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will not, along with the rest of creation groaning, be restored in the anakainensis.

Banned One
Some native American ethnae -did- believe in a Creator, they just didn’t have all the information that they needed.

Did Mary tell -us- that, or did she tell the caterers? As near as I can tell, it was the latter. Though if misunderstood as the former, it is still the best advice possible.

For grins, I did once find a book, by someone claiming to be a Catholic priest, while browsing the stacks at college, that proposed replacing the Holy Spirit with Mary. Or something similar to that. Of course, we can find archbishops and cardinals who defy Rome on human life and public, grave, mortal sin. So the existence of such a strange tome doesn’t really prove anything. Hence just for grins.

So Mary is to be understood as an advocate like you or I, not a second Savior? Second Redeemer? That isn’t something that comes across clearly to someone trained in Reformed and Lutheran terminology. The notion that Christ, far from being a high priest forever, yet in like nature with ours tempted in every way as us, yet without sins, sympathizes with us in our weaknesses, and y et would not love us or forgive us or answer our prayers if His Mother didn’t get on His case about it? I’ve heard that taught by a loyalorthodox so far as I know, priest, attempting to explain Mary’s role to Prostants (God Bless him for trying!)

 

[porthos11]

Wil Peregrin:

Mr. Santa,
I hereby expose some of my vast ignorance.

How can Mary Theotokos (Godbearer, not mother of God) be antecedant to and generative of the infinite uncreated? And where is that taught?

She is rightly declared Theotokos, against the Arians, Nestorians and their modern recapitulators, but Mother of the Ancient of Days, the “I Am” “He Who Causes To Be”? Do you have a created before, both onotologically and chronologically, the uncreate?

I’ll respond to just this one.

To be a mother is simply to bear in the womb and give birth, not to create. The term Mother of God is identical to God-bearer because it was the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity that she bore and gave birth to (became a mother to). Theotokos is in all respects equal to Mother of God. To deny this is to deny the divinity of the Person she bore and birthed, and therefore jeopardizes the worthiness of his atonement on the Cross.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Wil Peregrin:

Mr. Santa,
I hereby expose some of my vast ignorance.

How can Mary Theotokos (Godbearer, not mother of God) be antecedant to and generative of the infinite uncreated? And where is that taught?

She is rightly declared Theotokos, against the Arians, Nestorians and their modern recapitulators, but Mother of the Ancient of Days, the “I Am” “He Who Causes To Be”? Do you have a created before, both onotologically and chronologically, the uncreate?

Mary need not be antecedent to the infinite uncreated. As mother of God, she need not precede God in existence, for that would imply that God had a temporal beginning, a proposition which is theologically and philosophically untenable. God would then have a beginning and hence would not be God, but a lesser being.

A mother is defined a one who bears in her womb another. Mary carried Jesus in her womb for nine months, and supplied the genetic material for His human body. Hence Mary fully qualifies as the mother of Jesus. Since Mary is the mother of Jesus, it must be logically concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is truly God, ergo, Mary is the Mother of God.

Thus, when we say she is mother of God, we do not mean she is the source of His Divinity, which is eternal and uncreated, but rather, because she carried Him, who is also a person, in her womb, and supplied the material out of which His human body is composed.

Gerry

 

[tuopaolo]

Cosmo:

Granted, that they may be. However, I bet you’d be hard-pressed to think of a single other person (other than those three) who fall into that category. If I understand things correctly, they’re all supposed to be God anyway, so why even bother attempting to label them as people?

It still seems to be a contradictory assessment.

Angels are also persons.

 

[mercygate]

RobedWithLight:

Since Mary is the mother of Jesus, it must be logically concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is truly God, ergo, Mary is the Mother of God.

Thus, when we say she is mother of God, we do not mean she is the source of His Divinity, which is eternal and uncreated, but rather, because she carried Him, who is also a person, in her womb, and supplied the material out of which His human body is composed.

Gerry

Whoa! Gerry! If you had been around in the fourth century, we wouldn’t have needed the third ecumenical council! GREAT job!

 

[mlchance]

tuopaolo:

Angels are also persons.

Every once in a while, for brief periods of time, I’m convinced that my cat is a person. But when I try to corner her about it, she turns back into a cat. Very annoying.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BillM7985]

Let’s remember that motherhood is not always used in a bilogical or procreative sense. Recall from John’s gospel:

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. John 19, 25-27

Thus she is not only St. John’s mother, but ours as well.

O MARY CONCEIVED WITHOUT SIN PRAY FOR US WHO HAVE RECOURSE TO THEE

 

[davidv]

porthos11:

Don’t forget too, that Jesus is only 100% person, not 200%. That 100% of his personhood is divine. Jesus is NOT a human person.

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. To quote a portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 464

…He became truely man while remaining truly God…

This “hypostatic union” is discussed in more detail in articles 464-469.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Reformed Rob:

I haven’t read all this thread, but the thing that entered my mind quickly was something from a book I read recently. It was not a very exciting book, but I felt it was necessary.

Alexander Hislops’ The Two Babylons

In that work (I looked briefly for the page and quote, and source he cited just now, but couldn’t locate it) he says something about how the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary and Joseph are in the Trinity! Don’t worry, I don’t believe that, nor do I believe that Catholics actually believe that. In fact, if you believed that, you would cease to be Catholic.

Now, you should believe that Mary is uniquely related to the Trinity in a very special way that perhaps no other mere human enjoys. But that’s outlined quite well in teachin on the Immaculate Conception.

Rob

Great fun, isn’t it ? LOL​

Here’s the passage you may have in mind:

"What, then, would the reader say of a Church that teaches its children to adore such a Trinity as that contained in the following lines?
"Heart of Jesus, I adore thee;

Heart of Mary, I implore thee;

Heart of Joseph, pure and just;

IN THESE THREE HEARTS I PUT MY TRUST." *

• [long snip] It is not in Ireland, however, only, that such a trinity is exhibited for the worship of Romanists. In a Card, or Fly-leaf, issued by the Popish priests of Sunderland, now lying before me, with the heading “Paschal Duty, St. Mary’s Church, Bishopwearmouth, 1859,” the following is the 4th admonition given to the “Dear Christians” to whom it is addressed:

"4. And never forget the acts of a good Christian, recommended to you so often during the renewal of the Mission.

Blessed be Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I give you my heart, my life, and my soul.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, assist me always; and in my last agony,

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, receive my last breath. Amen."

[long snip]

If this is not Paganism, what is there that can be called by such a name? Yet this is the Trinity which now the Roman Catholics of Ireland from tender infancy are taught to adore. This is the Trinity which, in the latest books of catechetical instruction is presented as the grand object of devotion to the adherents of the Papacy."

My emphasis]

The complete passage can be found here:
philologos.org/__eb-ttb/sect23.htm

What he has done, is fail to realise that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are not the Catholic Trinity. Lord only knows why

Your summation is spot on ##

 

[Sharon_Watern]

Juxtaposer:

Needless to say, I totally agree with you. That is, except the last sentence. Only the core essentials of the Faith should be dogmatized, and these things about Mary are not core essentials, if even true. I’m not saying that they’re not true, just that they may not be. You as Catholics should have no problem with maying that since they haven’t been declared ex cathedra.

I agree with this last comment. I believe Mary is very much mother of the Savior, but as to her role as co-redemptrix, I will have to say I have a huge problem putting this into my faith system. As to her role as intercessor and our mother, that was stated during the Crucifixion by her son on the Cross. He, however,did not say she was taking (during those moments of crucifying pain) an active role in saving the world from sin and curruption as an extended Divine part of her Son. There is no such nonsense ever found ,much less proved to be the case.

According to the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, Divinity was prophetic, or pre-announced in theOld Testament. Passages tell us Jesus was the one to come,the Savior who would come to redeem mankind. It said He would be born in a particular place and when the time came, people would be taught how to live to attain Eternal Life. In the New Testament, it is said he was born of a virgin and lived with her and a foster father, named Joseph, who raised him.

Nowhere in scripture does it say that the virgin who gave birth was
Divine, or meant to be. The Mother of God, or Mary, was human,
and she retained her vow of celebate married virginity as we are taught by Mother Church. Mary had a human will and made human choices even though she is known as the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Sheen pointed out that it was her decision to stay close to her son (so very close, all her life) and follow his inspirations and salvific activity in the world. She, too, grew as a human female, in virtue and grace, like we are expected to do.

The Old Testament would have pre-announced that a
Divine person would come into the world before the Messiah, who would be a woman, who would be the Mother of God, just as the Messiah was preannounced in passages. There is no prediction emphatically stated anywhere that this would happen.

 

[porthos11]

davidv:

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. To quote a portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 464
This “hypostatic union” is discussed in more detail in articles 464-469.

NO. Again, Jesus is not a human person. He is a Divine Person, who assumes two natures, human and divine. It’s this union of two NATURES that is the hypostatic union, not the union of two PERSONS. This is the whole point of “Mother of God”. Jesus is indeed fully God and fully Man, but is Personhood is divine. There is a BIG difference between personhood and nature. To make Jesus both a human and divine person is to make him two persons (and then, which Person was it that died on the cross?), and therefore falls into the Nestorian trap.

“Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God.” (Catechism 470).

Don’t confuse the two. To say Jesus is a human person is outright heresy. The orthodox Catholic teaching is this: that Jesus Christ is two natures hypostatically united in one Divine Person.

 

[kepha1]

Yes, there actually was a sect that worshipped Mary, around 450 to 350 AD. They were known as “Collyridians”. But the Church taught against this heresy.

lrc.edu/rel/blosser/collyridianism.htm

kepha1

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

**Jux,

Well if you look at Catholic Marian tradition, it becomes clear that, over time, the church is in the process of doing with her what my favorite chef Emeril Lagasse does to the recipes on his cooking shows: they’re slowly ‘kicking her up a notch’!
Currently she’s poised to rise to coredemptrix - fully sharing in the salvific work of Jesus Christ. (i.e. they become the ‘salvation twins’!) The pope has already talked this one blue. The only remaining step is his infallible declaration, and she’s in.

Beyond that, about all they have left is to boost her up to cocreatrix - fully sharing in the deific work of God the Father. (i.e. she becomes Mother Goddess!).

Then, with a ‘new understand of the Holy Spirit’ as the Crone, they’ve got the classic pagan : Father God, Mother Goddess, son, and Crone.

I guess that would be the Holy Quadrinity?

**

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

Cosmo:

If he’s fully (100%) God and fully (100%) man, doesn’t that make him a 200% person? How’s that possible?

Wouldn’t 50% man and 50% God make more sense?

Cosmo,

**No! ‘100% God and 100% man’ is sort of like ‘100% woman and 100% overweight’. **
Clearly one being can embody both characteristics at the same time.

 

[mrS4ntA]

**Jux,

Well if you look at Catholic Marian tradition, it becomes clear that, over time, the church is in the process of doing with her what my favorite chef Emeril Lagasse does to the recipes on his cooking shows: they’re slowly ‘kicking her up a notch’!
Currently she’s poised to rise to coredemptrix - fully sharing in the salvific work of Jesus Christ. (i.e. they become the ‘salvation twins’!) The pope has already talked this one blue. The only remaining step is his infallible declaration, and she’s in.

Beyond that, about all they have left is to boost her up to cocreatrix - fully sharing in the deific work of God the Father. (i.e. she becomes Mother Goddess!).

Then, with a ‘new understand of the Holy Spirit’ as the Crone, they’ve got the classic pagan : Father God, Mother Goddess, son, and Crone.

I guess that would be the Holy Quadrinity?

**

that’s a really crude way in describing the Marian dogmae!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Jux,

Well if you look at Catholic Marian tradition, it becomes clear that, over time, the church is in the process of doing with her what my favorite chef Emeril Lagasse does to the recipes on his cooking shows: they’re slowly ‘kicking her up a notch’!
Currently she’s poised to rise to coredemptrix - fully sharing in the salvific work of Jesus Christ. (i.e. they become the ‘salvation twins’!) The pope has already talked this one blue. The only remaining step is his infallible declaration, and she’s in.

Beyond that, about all they have left is to boost her up to cocreatrix - fully sharing in the deific work of God the Father. (i.e. she becomes Mother Goddess!).

Then, with a ‘new understand of the Holy Spirit’ as the Crone, they’ve got the classic pagan : Father God, Mother Goddess, son, and Crone.

I guess that would be the Holy Quadrinity?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be implying that adopting this title would somehow change Mary’s status. Keep in mind, nothing is changing other than adding another title to Mary’s list. He status is as it’s always been.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Contarini]

It’s not just crude–it’s a load of ignorant paranoid garbage. I can say that because I’m not a Catholic. But people who interpret Catholic doctrine this way just aren’t making any serious effort to understand what Catholics really believe. They need to be called to repentance for their blatant disregard of truth and charity.

Edwin

 

[mrS4ntA]

Contarini:

It’s not just crude–it’s a load of ignorant paranoid garbage. I can say that because I’m not a Catholic. But people who interpret Catholic doctrine this way just aren’t making any serious effort to understand what Catholics really believe. They need to be called to repentance for their blatant disregard of truth and charity.

Edwin

God bless you for that charitably open mind, Edwind…

 

[RobedWithLight]

Cosmo,

**No! ‘100% God and 100% man’ is sort of like ‘100% woman and 100% overweight’. **
Clearly one being can embody both characteristics at the same time.

On this score I agree. Like a piece of rock being 100 percent hard and 100% rough. An admittedly crude analogy but which gives us an inkling of the truth.

Gerry

 

[RobedWithLight]

Jux,

Currently she’s poised to rise to coredemptrix - fully sharing in the salvific work of Jesus Christ. (i.e. they become the ‘salvation twins’!) The pope has already talked this one blue. The only remaining step is his infallible declaration, and she’s in.

Beyond that, about all they have left is to boost her up to cocreatrix - fully sharing in the deific work of God the Father. (i.e. she becomes Mother Goddess!).

Quite unlikely. Declaring Mary as Co-creatrix, fully sharing in the deific work of the Father, simply cannot be justified from either scripture or tradition. There is simply no basis for it.

Gerry