Clauso Utero

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:

I think that RCs and others tend to concentrate on the divinity of Christ; whereas Baptists and others tend toward the humanity of Christ. That's why you might think it strange that Christ would use His divine nature to pass through Mary's abdomen and a RC might think it strange that Jesus would pass through a human plumbing system to be born.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that Baptists and others tend to see the birth of Christ (God incarnate) as concentrating on the deity, and Catholics so concentrate on the method that Christ was born, focus on Mary rather than the Divine Christ--and thus: Mariolotry.
DHK

 

[Melanie]

pi ching!!!

[ May 07, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Briony-Gloriana ]

 

[John Gilmore]

DHK, Christ4Kildare,

Clauso Utero should be judged against scripture alone. The fact that the RCC uses the doctrine in an unscriptural way is irrelevant. However, I agree that natural birth fits scripture much better than Clauso Utero.

As long as we agree that Jesus is 100% divine and 100% human, that Christ's divinity and humanity are never separated, and that, in the communication of the attributes, Christ may pass through any barrier at any time, then the mode of His birth has little theological significance. Are Baptists prepared to accept that?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I've never known of a Baptist to argue over it.

I think the scriptural evidence is clear, Jesus "opened the womb" and "Mary brought forth her firstborn son."

These seem clear and there is NO evidence to support anything other than a normal birth.

If, for some unknown reason, the other is true it would certainly not destroy my faith.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

This baptist believes that Christ's birth was normal at the birthing end, but I will not have to do a lot of theological shuffling around if it turns out when I get to heaven that I learn the birth was also miraculous.

 

[Kathryn]

Jesus Christ as true man and true God would have come through the birth canal. The Catholic Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." Jesus passing through the birth canal would not have violated Mary from being a virgin. Her virginity would have been sanctified, not violated. Clauso Utero is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. It seems to be a teaching of Martin Luther. Of course Mary bore Jesus Christ just as prophecied. She gave birth to Jesus Christ. A virgin shall conceive and bear a son. Jesus Christ didn’t skip the birth process.

 

[Brother Adam]

I think that RCs and others tend to concentrate on the divinity of Christ; whereas Baptists and others tend toward the humanity of Christ

I would have to disagree. I believe both Baptists and Catholics understand both his 100% humanity and divinity in the birth of Christ.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that Baptists and others tend to see the birth of Christ (God incarnate) as concentrating on the deity, and Catholics so concentrate on the method that Christ was born, focus on Mary rather than the Divine Christ--and thus: Mariolotry.

Mariolotry is a mortal sin in the Catholic faith. Mary is not to be worshipped. I suggest reading "Hail, Holy Queen" as an introductory book to Mary in scripture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
Mariolotry is a mortal sin in the Catholic faith. Mary is not to be worshipped. I suggest reading "Hail, Holy Queen" as an introductory book to Mary in scripture.

Redefining Biblical terms such as idolatry doesnt make it any less a sin. Mary is worshiped, by the very definition (Biblical) of worship. Because the Catholic Church creates their own dichotomy in defining the word worship does not excuse the sin of idolatry. Sin is sin, no matter how you redefine the terms of sin, worship and idolatry. Mariolotry is sin. It is the sin of idolatry.
DHK

 

[Brother Adam]

Numbers 22:31
Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face.

Rev. 22:8-9
I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."

In both of these instances two people bow down to an angel. Balaam was permitted to do so because he bowed in fear, honor, and reverence. John tried to bow in worship. This was not permitted. So we see that even in the same action, in this case bowing, it may or may not be worship depending on the persons intentions.

Acts 10:25-26
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."

Same thing. Cornelius tried to worship Peter, so Peter did not allow it. The Pope may allow someone to bow in respect before him, but if the Pope senses the person trying to worship him, he would naturally stop it immediately.

Acts 12:21-23
On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, "The voice of a god, and not of a man!" Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last.

Herod accepted worship, and thus was struck dead by God.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
Redefining Biblical terms such as idolatry doesnt make it any less a sin. Mary is worshiped, by the very definition (Biblical) of worship.

As a former Catholic myself who is now a die hard Baptist, I can tell you that the Catholic Church does NOT worship Mary. Revere to an extreme which is not to my liking, yes, imo. But they don't worship Mary. That's not to say I agree with some concepts like Mary's co-redemptrix nature, bucause I don't, and I think that's biblically inappropriate, but as far as worshipping is concerned, no, they don't worship Mary.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Redefining Biblical terms such as idolatry doesnt make it any less a sin. Mary is worshiped, by the very definition (Biblical) of worship.

As a former Catholic myself who is now a die hard Baptist, I can tell you that the Catholic Church does NOT worship Mary. Revere to an extreme which is not to my liking, yes, imo. But they don't worship Mary. That's not to say I agree with some concepts like Mary's co-redemptrix nature, bucause I don't, and I think that's biblically inappropriate, but as far as worshipping is concerned, no, they don't worship Mary. </font>[/QUOTE]I was a former Catholic too John. I may not have considered it worship of Mary at that time. That is not the point. I must consider it worship now. I didn't know the teachings of the Bible then, as I do now. The Bible considers it idolatry. My opinion, whether as a Catholic or a Baptist doesn't count. It is what the Bible says. Whenever a person says the "Hail Mary" it is worship of Mary, whether they consider it worship or not. "Pray for sinners now." It is praying to the dead to intercede on your behalf (something only Christ can do). It is not asking someong to pray with you or a living person to pray for you. It is asking a dead person to intercede on your behalf--a position only Christ can hold--the difference being that Christ is risen from the dead; he is alive and not dead.
"Holy Mary, mother of God." I don't address others this way. This is worship. This is adoration. God alone is holy. One needs to study about the holiness of God. Is Mary as holy as God is holy. The answer is no. Is Mary, in Heaven, still the mother of God? Absolutely not. That is heresy. She was Christ's human mother while on earth. She provided that function for a certain time in history. Now she is dead, and no longer his mother. She is not the mother of God--an impossibility, and yet she is WORSHIPED as such.
DHK

 

[Brother Adam]

I must consider it worship now

Exactly.

The Bible considers it idolatry

The Bible does not consider the honor of Mary idolatry.

Whenever a person says the "Hail Mary" it is worship of Mary

An angel worshipped Mary?

It is praying to the dead to intercede on your behalf (something only Christ can do).

Only Christ can ask the Saints in heaven to ask Him to aid us? Cite your source please. I was under the impression that those in heaven are alive. No longer here on earth, but part of the Church Triumphant in heaven.

This is worship. This is adoration. God alone is holy

Are you saying you are going to remain unholy in heaven? Your still going to keep on sinning?

Is Mary, in Heaven, still the mother of God? Absolutely not. That is heresy. She was Christ's human mother while on earth

It's heresy, actually, to split Christ's divinity from his humanity. Mary is not the begat Jesus, but Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.

 

[Kathryn]

The medical consequences of pregnancy appear to extend well beyond delivery. Live fetal cells have been found within a mother's circulation decades after she has given birth. This intermixing of very low levels of fetal with the mother's own cells is called microchimerism. There is a good chance that Mary had Jesus Christ’s fetal cells within her decades after Jesus Christ was born. “The Lord has done great things for me and Holy is His name.”

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:

I must consider it worship now

[QB]

Exactly.

Then you should have no disagreement with me, because I must consider the worship of Mary as worship based on the Bible. That is exactly true. I am glad that you agree with me. The discussion should then stop here because you now agree.

The Bible considers it idolatry

The Bible does not consider the honor of Mary idolatry.

Again, the redefining of words by Catholics. It is not simple honor is it. It is worship, adoration, and reverence--that which is due only to God--and that which the Bible strictly forbids.

Whenever a person says the "Hail Mary" it is worship of Mary

An angel worshipped Mary?

I can see throughout this post you have twisted my words. Have you done this deliberately? I didn't say "address Mary," and I was referring to the specific prayer "The Hail Mary," as it is called. I think you knew that.

It is praying to the dead to intercede on your behalf (something only Christ can do).

Only Christ can ask the Saints in heaven to ask Him to aid us? Cite your source please. I was under the impression that those in heaven are alive. No longer here on earth, but part of the Church Triumphant in heaven.

Another example of twisting my words. Only Christ can interced for us. I think you knew that I was saying that also.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
--Catholics don't believe this verse, do they? That is why they pray to Mary asking Mary to intercede on their behalf. As I said, only Christ has the ability to intercede for us. You have made Mary a god.
I never said anything about Christ asking the saints to intercede for us. Perhaps my statement was ambiguous, but that is certainly not what I said.
The Book of Revelation gives us a picture of what is in Heaven and what Heaven will be like. The saints in Heaven are dead. Mary is dead, as far as we are concerned. Their bodies are still in the grave. Do you believe in ancestor worship like the Shintos of Japan. Do you go to the cemetaries and pray to your dead ancestors (whether or not they be in Heaven is irrelevant). This is spiritism. The Bible calls it necromancy. Praying to the spirits of the dead is sin; it is wrong. If you practiced this in the Old Testament you would be led outside the camp of Israel and be stoned to death--whether or not the spirit of that dead person was Mary, it would not matter. The bodies of the dead are still in the grave. They are dead. The resurrection has not happened yet.

This is worship. This is adoration. God alone is holy

Are you saying you are going to remain unholy in heaven? Your still going to keep on sinning?

I never said any of the such. I didn't say anything about sin. I said God alone is holy. Perhaps you should do a study on the holiness of God. Is Mary as holy as God is? The answer is no.

Is Mary, in Heaven, still the mother of God? Absolutely not. That is heresy. She was Christ's human mother while on earth

It's heresy, actually, to split Christ's divinity from his humanity. Mary is not the begat Jesus, but Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.

Christ is both man and God at the same time. I accept that. But Mary does not eternally remain the mother of God. She was only the mother of Jesus while he was on the earth; not while he is in heaven. To say such is heresy. Mary is a spirit. A spirit has no flesh. Her body is in the grave--dead. Dead people can't be mothers can they? You're whole analogy breaks down right there. Mary was used on earth for a purpose for a certain time in history. She was a sinner like any other person. She provided a sin offering like every other mother that gave birth to a child. She admitted her sinfulness. She admitted her need of a Saviour because of her sinfulness. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, Mary included. This sinful woman is not the mother of God, and not holy as God.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
Jesus Christ as true man and true God would have come through the birth canal. The Catholic Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." Jesus passing through the birth canal would not have violated Mary from being a virgin. Her virginity would have been sanctified, not violated. Clauso Utero is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. It seems to be a teaching of Martin Luther. Of course Mary bore Jesus Christ just as prophecied. She gave birth to Jesus Christ. A virgin shall conceive and bear a son. Jesus Christ didn’t skip the birth process.

Could you explain how passing "through the barriers of nature without injuring them" and "penetrated another body after the manner of spirits" differs from "Clauso Utero"?

the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary's integrity, but also causing Christ's birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that "the Light from Light" proceeded from his mother's womb as a light shed on the world; that the "power of the Most High" passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that "the body of the Word" formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits. Catholic Enclopedia, Virgin Birth of Christ

BTW, Martin Luther did write, Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimarer Ausgabe 6:510) But he also wrote:
Some people dispute about exactly how this birth [of Christ] happened, whether she [Mary] was delivered of the child in the bed, in great joy, whether she was without all pain as this was happening. I do not reproach people for their devotion, but we should stay with the Gospel, which says, “she bore him,” and by the article of faith that we recite: “who is born of the virgin Mary.” There is no deceit here, but, as the words state, a true birth. We certainly know what birth is, and how it proceeds. It happens to her as it does to other women, with good spirits and with the actions of her limbs as is appropriate in a birth, so that she is his right and natural mother and he is her right and natural son. (“Sermon for Christmas” [1522], quoted in Luther on Women [edited by Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks] [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], p. 50)

 

[Kathryn]

"power of the Most High" passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them;

If one is to believe Holy Scripture, as Catholics do, it is accepted that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son". This in itself is miraculous. Her virginity was not violated by Jesus birth, it was sanctified by the Word of God. This is not to say that Jesus did not come out of the birth canal, that is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. We believe the virgin bore Jesus Christ as prophecied in Holy Scripture.

 

[Brother Adam]

My emphasis was on the word "must" DHK. You have to view it as worship. Because if you don't, it may draw you closer to home. You feel an overwhelming need to prove everything Catholic wrong. Here the Baptistboard has eliminated most of the Catholics who can put up a strong argument, and yet people here keep on their tirade that everything Catholic is evil. Well, as long as it makes you feel better right?

Catholics do not believe Mary is holy as God is Holy. But that doesn't matter does it? Anything to make the Church look bad right?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
My emphasis was on the word "must" DHK. You have to view it as worship. Because if you don't, it may draw you closer to home. You feel an overwhelming need to prove everything Catholic wrong. Here the Baptistboard has eliminated most of the Catholics who can put up a strong argument, and yet people here keep on their tirade that everything Catholic is evil. Well, as long as it makes you feel better right?

Catholics do not believe Mary is holy as God is Holy. But that doesn't matter does it? Anything to make the Church look bad right?

2 Timothy 4:1-2 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

2 Peter 2:1-2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

No, Adam. Not anything to make them look bad. We are commanded to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints--for there are false teachers among you bringing in damnable heresies, and many shall follow their pernicious ways.

This is the obvious and best reason to point out the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church, comparing them to the Bible. The Bible is our standard of truth.
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

double post

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Kathryn:
"power of the Most High" passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them;

If one is to believe Holy Scripture, as Catholics do, it is accepted that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son". This in itself is miraculous. Her virginity was not violated by Jesus birth, it was sanctified by the Word of God. This is not to say that Jesus did not come out of the birth canal, that is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. We believe the virgin bore Jesus Christ as prophecied in Holy Scripture.

I don't see how that differs from Clauso Utero as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.

Some have held that Christ, in His Birth, assumed the gift of "subtlety," when He came forth from the closed womb of a virgin; and that He assumed the gift of "agility" when with dry feet He walked on the sea. But this is not consistent with what has been decided above (Question [14]). For these gifts of a glorified body result from an overflow of the soul's glory on to the body, as we shall explain further on, in treating of glorified bodies (XP, Question [82]): and it has been said above (Question [13], Article [3], ad 1; Question [16], Article [1], ad 2) that before His Passion Christ "allowed His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it" (Damascene, De Fide Orth. iii): nor was there such an overflow of glory from His soul on to His body.
We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): "To the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate." And Dionysius says in an epistle (Ad Caium iv) that "Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural conception, of a virgin, and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of earthly feet."The Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas

The RCC may not call their dogma "Clauso Utero" but that's what it is. I have no problem with Clauso Utero being accepted as a pious opinion by the RCC. Teaching that Mary retained the tokens of her virginity throughout the birth of Jesus does not conflict with any doctrine of scripture.