Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[guanophore]

I think the straightforward gospel is very simple to understand. Just read it and it speaks for itself. You don’t need an interpretation.

Here is Peter preaching to the gentiles.

It seems that way, on the face of it. But that is because we are approaching the text with a context already. We read with pre-conceived notions of the meaning.

If what you were saying were true, we would not have all this splintering and separation in the Church. We would not have different communities claiming opposite things. Yes, we all agree on some basic points, but that agreement does not get us very far before we begin to diverge and separate.

Mary is definitely the mother of Jesus, the son of God. The Mother of God is another confusing term which the Church started.

It is interesting that you consider the Theotokos “another confusing term which the Church has started”. The same I expect can be said of the word Trinity, also not found in the Bible, or homoousous. The Church “starts” these terms to define the faith to combat heresies. This MUST be done. It is the duty of the Church to be the pillar and ground of the Truth, so when heresies run rampant, she must act.

Is Mary the mother of God the Father? The Father is infinite, without a beginning that we can comprehend. Mary was born at a specific time and place. Jesus existed with the Father before his incarnation. So I would answer yes. Mary is the Mother of God the Son but how could Mary be the mother of God the Father?

No, but I am glad you are asking these questions, because for a minute there I was concerned that you were just being intellectually lazy.

These questions you ask were already asked (and answered) by theologians a millenia and a half ago. The bishops wrestled with them for years before the Council came to a decision on how to define the matter. By asking them, you shown that you are entering into the same theological dialogue that was necessary to prevent the Church from falling into heresy, which is a good thing.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well, that’s a little peculiar.

It’s like saying:

I can profess that female mammals can produce milk.
And I can profess that cows produce milk.
But I am not willing to profess that cows are mammals.

PR, you are fond of this attempt at a syllogism, but it has been pointed out to you before that it is false.

You are saying:
1 Female mammals can produce milk
2 Cows can produce milk
3 Therefore cows are mammals.

Would you also say:
1 Dogs can swim
2 Fish can swim
3 Therefore fish are dogs.

 

[clem456]

I’m not “dancing” with anything, but apparently I am failing in even adding to the conversation in a coherent manner. You are repeating and hitting on all the points I’ve been saying; you and I agree on who Jesus is completely. We even agree that Mary is Theotokos. There’s no debate between me and the RCC on that. That has nothing to do with sharing my perspective. The focus I’m sharing isn’t on Mary and who or what she is, the question is, what is a requirement to join the RCC which is, by Catholic teaching, joined to the question of salvation and what protestant brothers and sister “must” fully and faithfully believe in order to be in right standing with the RCC if they wish to join, and who they have to believe those things about. I’m not playing some type of game, I’ve offering information; if we are to not put stumbling-blocks in our brothers’ and sisters’ way, part of that is recognizing said stumbling-blocks and discussing them… but perhaps that is best left to the ecumenical councils and meetings.

Ok perhaps I’m confusing you with some of the other posters after losing track of the thread. It is a long one. My apologies.
There are a few posts above that address your concerns.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This isn’t about knowing information about Mary, this is what you have to profess, and fully and faithfully believe in order to attain salvation. Scripture says one thing about what you must trust in order to be saved, and Who you have to have that trust about, the RCC adds in another, or at least that is the way it appears, for, I can fully and faithfully believe every single thing about Jesus right along with you, but that is now not enough for the RCC.

Here’s the issue:
If you deny those basic, fundamental doctrines about Mary, you are logically denying a basic Truth about Jesus.

The Church has gone down the path of irrefutable logic on those issues.

For instance, if you deny Mary as the Theotokos, you are ipso facto denying the divinity of Christ.

 

[Kliska]

If you deny those basic, fundamental doctrines about Mary, you are logically denying a basic Truth about Jesus.

And, my contention that it is possible to affirm all the truth about Jesus without adding in Marian dogma that is aimed specifically at her. If the Assumption of Mary is really about Jesus’ love and honor for Mary and the church and His promises to us, then let’s make dogma about Jesus, instead of making it about Mary specifically in wording and what must be believed. From this perspective of protestants like me, this is not an attempt to insult Mary, but rather a matter of respect to Jesus.

I can see it from the RCC position, and all of you already in the RCC, but that his not my position. I am one that is outside the RCC looking at her claims and her dogmas. There are two roads in from the outside; assent to authority in one big hurdled leap, like a high jump. The other road is to look at the dogma of the church and see if one can assent to each bit, like hurdles. Much like I’ve mentioned, this is why CS Lewis commented on the “Jungle of Catholicism” as opposed to the “Desert of Protestantism.”

 

[guanophore]

I accept Mary. What’s not to accept about Mary. Of course Mary is the mother of Jesus.
I’m saying the gospel and teachings of the apostle are slightly different from that of Catholicism. They just evolved into dependence upon Mary for salvation.

This is what the apostles said.

1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:12
“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

No, Dalphon. No one is any more dependent upon Mary for salvation that we ever were. Mary has always had the same role in salvation (though I do think our understanding of it has grown). Mary, as the first Christian, has always been part of the foundation that was laid in Jesus. And her participation in His plan of salvation does not change the fact that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. That name is here for us because she gave her flesh to create His flesh. The body that was nailed to the cross for our salvation came from her womb. She stood at the cross, a sword piercing her own heart also as he was crucified. There is no need to separate Jesus from His mother in any of the salvation He provided.

Do you imagine that Catholics think that those who came to worship Jesus bowed down to Mary as she held her Son? The fact that she was holding Him while others worshipped does not mean they were worshipping her. She is a creature.

 

[clem456]

And, my contention that it is possible to affirm all the truth about Jesus without adding in Marian dogma that is aimed specifically at her.

We can’t know Jesus completely in this life, because he is God. God is the ultimate “other person” who is distinct from us.
How does God reveal himself to us?
Through the Old Testament for starters, the story of a people.
Through the New Testament, the revealing of a Person, who lived among a people.
Through those (disciples, apostles) who Christ commissioned to continue being his people.
Through those people who live around us now.

Who here can say that he has come to Christ without the witness of those around us? Which of us built our own foundation in the Christian faith? Show of hands please?

If Christ gives us** people** to help reveal who he is, wouldn’t it be possible that the Mother of God is foremost among us? What other person can you name who conceives with the Holy Spirit? No other human being is that closely united with God.

If the Assumption of Mary is really about Jesus’ love and honor for Mary and the church and His promises to us, then let’s make dogma about Jesus, instead of making it about Mary specifically in wording and what must be believed. From this perspective of protestants like me, this is not an attempt to insult Mary, but rather a matter of respect to Jesus.

I can see it from the RCC position, and all of you already in the RCC, but that his not my position. I am one that is outside the RCC looking at her claims and her dogmas. There are two roads in from the outside; assent to authority in one big hurdled leap, like a high jump. The other road is to look at the dogma of the church and see if one can assent to each bit, like hurdles. Much like I’ve mentioned, this is why CS Lewis commented on the “Jungle of Catholicism” as opposed to the “Desert of Protestantism.”

Faith is a big request of anyone, and faith is after all a theological gift from God, not a possession we just grab on to. It takes time and prayer. It starts with commitment. You ask for it, and trust God to provide. Honestly, by your dialogue here you are progressing in your faith more earnestly than many who are Catholic and never give it a second thought. This is not really about “who’s in-who’s out”, or who understands everything (none of us do), it’s about making a commitment and continuing on a journey.

 

[Kliska]

We can’t know Jesus completely in this life, because he is God. God is the ultimate “other person” who is distinct from us.
How does God reveal himself to us?
Through the Old Testament for starters, the story of a people.
Through the New Testament, the revealing of a Person, who lived among a people.
Through those (disciples, apostles) who Christ commissioned to continue being his people.
Through those people who live around us now.

Who here can say that he has come to Christ without the witness of those around us? Which of us built our own foundation in the Christian faith? Show of hands please?

If Christ gives us** people** to help reveal who he is, wouldn’t it be possible that the Mother of God is foremost among us? What other person can you name who conceives with the Holy Spirit? No other human being is that closely united with God.

Faith is a big request of anyone, and faith is after all a theological gift from God, not a possession we just grab on to. It takes time and prayer. It starts with commitment. You ask for it, and trust God to provide. Honestly, by your dialogue here you are progressing in your faith more earnestly than many who are Catholic and never give it a second thought. This is not really about “who’s in-who’s out”, or who understands everything (none of us do), it’s about making a commitment and continuing on a journey.

Thank you for your kind words, it is one of those things that is akin to knowing we are standing on opposite hilltops and we are trying to share the view and what we see. Sometimes that communication is frustrating because we literally have different perspectives.

Grace and peace,
K

 

[guanophore]

I’ve read the catechism. It contradicts much of what the Church taught before Vatican II. Limbo, salvation of non-catholics, necessity of baptism. Now that you mention it, that’s another beef I have with the Catholic Church.

You know, the Church’s understanding of God’s once for all revelation of Himself to mankind does grow and mature over time, and the Magesterium does adapt the catechism to address problems of the modern age.

I suspect that, if the catechism had not been updated to address the reality of the Reformation, you would have a complaint about that as well.

It is likely that you did not leave the faith into which you were baptized for any of these reasons.

The Truth is that the topics you mention here are actually only a very small percentage of the faith, which can be clearly seen by how little space they take in the catechism as a whole. They are not “much”.

The “much” lies in your misperceptions of the faith. I am sorry that you were so poorly catechized. I was too, and I have to admit, it was a major impediment for me. For many years I did exactly what you are doing, instead of educating myself, continued to have a “beef” about things I did not like, and did not understand, or about which I had a resentment.

You can blame the Church, or the nuns that taught you, or a priest who said something that hurt your feelings, but ultimately, it is every individuals responsibility to “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” 2 Tim 2:15.

If you study the reasons the Church made these changes (instead of harboring “beef”) and your conscience still leads you to renounce your baptismal faith, then I will pray that you are invicibly ignorant.

 

[Dalphon]

Do you think it is the Church’s ‘fault’ that there are some with different beliefs? The fact is that the Church is firm on being against homosexual acts, birth control, and premarital sex since the beginning.

No, it’s not the Church’s fault any more than it was God’s fault for people not obeying the 10 commandments. My point is this, just because you make rules and laws that doesn’t change people on the inside.

Anyway, why do you, united with Westboro, hate gay people?

You have me confused with someone else.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Salvationally speaking, the necessity is about Jesus, not about Mary. It is necessary to acknowledge points about Christ, not about His mother. That is even the contention of the RCC, and on that we agree. What we don’t agree about it whether having to faithfully and fully believe something about Mary violates scripture when it comes to saving faith. Mary was indeed given the title “Theotokos” which means God-bearer. I can profess and fully believe Jesus is God, and is also human, etc… etc… without ever giving Mary that title and forcing others to profess it. Is the title accurate? Yes. Again, that is not the point. I don’t even have trouble with the RCC’s teaching on Mary so much as making it full and formal dogma that one has to fully and faithfully believe before entrance to the church.

I know one “protestant’s” opinion isn’t worth much, and I’m not trying to change someone’s mind, but it is about hurdles that have accumulated over time and having an issue with the idea that I can stand shoulder to shoulder with you and believe all the same things about God; the Father, Son, and Spirit and that still is not counted as being good enough for what I must believe.

After posting that to which you have responded above, I went to bed. But I was still thinking about what you were saying, and I realized as I was lying there that my approach was all wrong. I was just too tired to get up and start over last night. So, here goes:

Catholics believe that certain things have been revealed to us by God. We call doctrines that are divinely revealed “dogmas”. Since God has gone to some lengths to reveal them to us, they must be important. So, we confess them as God-given truths.

Now, there is a lot in the Bible that really seems to have very little to do with Jesus Christ. The book of Numbers comes to mind as well as one or two of the small NT epistles which don’t even mention His name. Would you be willing to “throw out” those books simply because you aren’t confessing Jesus when you read or teach anything from those books? I doubt you would because it is enough for you that they are “God-breathed” scripture.

Similarly, Catholics hold ALL of God’s revelation just as dearly - whether passed on to us orally (Sacred Tradition) or in writing (Sacred Tradition). Would you have us ignore something from Sacred Tradition simply because it is not explicitly found in Sacred Scritpure? Or should we be true to our beliefs and treat ALL of God’s Word with equal reverence?

So, if someone wants to be a Catholic, then it will be important to understand WHY Sacred Tradition is viewed as one of the two fonts of divine revelation. And once the “why” is understood, confessing the “what” will be much more sensible.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

PR, you are fond of this attempt at a syllogism, but it has been pointed out to you before that it is false.

You are saying:
1 Female mammals can produce milk
2 Cows can produce milk
3 Therefore cows are mammals.

Would you also say:
1 Dogs can swim
2 Fish can swim
3 Therefore fish are dogs.

How then would you propose a syllogism which concludes that cows are mammals?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Salvationally speaking, the necessity is about Jesus, not about Mary. It is necessary to acknowledge points about Christ, not about His mother. That is even the contention of the RCC, and on that we agree. What we don’t agree about it whether having to faithfully and fully believe something about Mary violates scripture when it comes to saving faith. Mary was indeed given the title “Theotokos” which means God-bearer. I can profess and fully believe Jesus is God, and is also human, etc… etc… without ever giving Mary that title and forcing others to profess it. Is the title accurate? Yes. Again, that is not the point. I don’t even have trouble with the RCC’s teaching on Mary so much as making it full and formal dogma that one has to fully and faithfully believe before entrance to the church.

And this really is important…

Calling Mary “Mother of God” Tells Us Who Jesus Is
By Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D.
catholicexchange.com/2010/01/02/125718/

The mother of the messiah has been called many things in the last 2000 years — the Virgin Mary, Our Lady, the Blessed Mother. But call her “the Mother of God” and you’ll see some Christians squirm.

This is nothing new. One day in the early fifth century, a priest preached a stirring sermon in the presence of the patriarch of Constantinople. His subject was the holy mother of Jesus. The preacher continually referred to Mary as the “Theotokos” meaning “God-bearer” or mother of God. This was no innovation — Christians had invoked Mary under this title for at least two hundred years. Nevertheless, at the close of the sermon, the patriarch ascended the steps of the pulpit to correct the preacher. We should call Mary the Mother of Christ, said Patriarch Nestorius, not the Mother of God. She was the mother of his human nature, not the mother of his divinity.

His comment sparked a riot. And the dispute rocked not only the congregation, but the entire empire. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, immediately recognized that Nestorius’ Marian theology was a symptom of a much deeper problem, a problem with the incarnation itself. For to deny Mary the title “Mother of God” makes of Jesus a dichotomy, a split personality. It would mean that God had not really embraced our humanity so as to become human. Rather, the humanity of Christ is hermetically sealed off from the divinity, as if Jesus were two persons, as if human nature was so distasteful that God, in Christ, had to keep it at arm’s distance. It is okay, according to Nestorius, to say that in Jesus, God raised Lazarus, or multiplied the loaves, or walked on water. But it is not okay to say that in Jesus God is born or that God died.

Cyril, aware that this was a challenge to the heart of our faith, demanded that an ecumenical council be called to settle the matter. So in 431, the Council of Ephesus met, under Cyril’s leadership, and solemnly proclaimed that Mary is indeed rightly to be honored as the Theotokos, the Mother of God. It proclaimed that from the moment of his conception, God truly became man. Of course Mary is a creature and could never be the origin of the eternal Trinity, God without beginning or end. But the second person of the blessed Trinity chose to truly become man. He did not just come and borrow a human body and drive it around for awhile, ascend back to heaven, and discard it like an old car. No, at the moment of his conception in the womb of Mary, an amazing thing happened. God the Son united himself with a human nature forever. Humanity and divinity were so closely bound together in Jesus, son of Mary, that they could never be separated again. Everything that would be done by the son of Mary would be the act both of God and of man. So indeed it would be right to say that a man raised Lazarus from the dead and commanded the wind and waves, that God was born that first Christmas day and that, on Good Friday, God died.

The Council of Ephesus, once confirmed by the Pope, became the third ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, and its teaching in this matter is dogma, truth revealed by God which all are bound to accept.

 

[Dalphon]

Well, that’s a little peculiar.

It’s like saying:

I can profess that female mammals can produce milk.
And I can profess that cows produce milk.
But I am not willing to profess that cows are mammals.

Does this woman really exist, or is she a fairy tale?

If you don’t believe Christ was born of the union of the Holy Spirit and a woman, what is your proposal for the Incarnation? How did it happen?

Salvationally speaking, the necessity is about Jesus, not about Mary.

What Kliska is saying is this, and I think you know it’s. If all you had was the following paragraph to say and those who were listening believed what you said, they would have salvation.

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

Then baptize them.

 

[Dalphon]

If you study the reasons the Church made these changes (instead of harboring “beef”) and your conscience still leads you to renounce your baptismal faith, then I will pray that you are invicibly ignorant.

If they claimed to be infallible and yet made mistakes then I have to wonder about what mistakes are they making now?

 

[PRmerger]

Mary is definitely the mother of Jesus, the son of God. The Mother of God is another confusing term which the Church started. Is Mary the mother of God the Father? The Father is infinite, without a beginning that we can comprehend. Mary was born at a specific time and place. Jesus existed with the Father before his incarnation. So I would answer yes. Mary is the Mother of God the Son but how could Mary be the mother of God the Father?

Best answer to “How can Mary be the Mother of God but not the Mother of God the Father?” found on the CAFs by GottleofGeer:

It is fallacious because it depends in an equivocation - the meaning of the terms is not preserved. Specifically:
“Jesus is God” means “the man Jesus of Nazareth is a Divine Person”: “God” here stands for “God the Son”.

But “God is Trinity” means “the Three Divine Persons are one God Who is Trinity” - it does not mean “God the Son is Trinity”: that would be heretical, & as logic, it changes the meaning of the word “God”, which now means all Three Divine Persons, & no longer means “God the Son”.

Each syllogism is valid separately, but together they are fallacious, because of the equivocal use of the word “God”. Dr. Martin’s conclusion from the first syllogism is therefore not valid, but fails.

Are you referring to the term “God”? If that term typically refers to the whole Trinity can we even say “Jesus is God” without saying "Jesus is the Trinity

If it’s true to say “Jesus is God” and not be upbraided for leaving out the other two Persons of the Trinity, then for exactly the same reasons it is true to say “Mary is the mother of God.”

(substitute “God the Father” wherever “Trinity” is mentioned in the above response.)

 

[PRmerger]

What Kliska is saying is this, and I think you know it’s. If all you had was the following paragraph to say and those who were listening believed what you said, they would have salvation.

Sorry, Dalphon. But no one can “have salvation” until he is dead.

Salvation = being present with the Eternal Godhead, in the beatific vision, for eternity.

That occurs, of course, after we die.

 

[Dalphon]

What Kliska is saying is this, and I think you know it’s. If you were an airplane that was about to crash and all you had was the following paragraph to say, and those who were listening believed what you said, they would have salvation.

 

[Dalphon]

Sorry, Dalphon. But no one can “have salvation” until he is dead.

Well if the scenario occurred on a descending airplane or at the site of an erupting volcano or maybe to be more realistic a person who is overdosing on heroin, then that person or group of people would know very soon.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

And, my contention that it is possible to affirm all the truth about Jesus without adding in Marian dogma that is aimed specifically at her.

That’s just it – they’re not “aimed specifically at her.”

No more than, say, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

Do you believe that Christians should accept the Virgin Birth?