Mary and the recent Papal teaching

[MrW]

Interestingly, Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy of the “Seed of the woman”, referring to the Lord Jesus. The Lord never refers to Mary as “Mother”, but always as “Woman”. And that is not disrespectful at all.

As an aside, I understand “Christ” to refer to His being God, and “Jesus” referencing His being a genuine man.

 

[MrW]

Hi Charlie:

No, being blessed and 'highly favored' or 'full of grace' is very significant, however. Let's take a closer look at this.
And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Please consider what another Catholic being asked a very similar question and how He answered.

'Mother of the Lord means Mother of God, right? Isn’t Jesus our Lord and God?

Now you might say “The Greek word kurios or ‘lord’ can indeed be used to denote divinity but not necessarily so. It can be used to denote an earthly potentate or even false ‘lords’ or gods” (see Matt. 20:8; 21:40; I Cor. 8:5-6, etc.). And this is true.

The key to our discussion then is to ascertain how kurios is being used of Christ in Luke 1:43. Was it being used to describe Jesus with regard to his humanity alone, or with regard to his divinity?

Old Testament Type​

First, when Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry… why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me” (Luke 1:42-43), Mary was revealed to be the New Testament Ark of the Lord. Elizabeth’s words make this clear as they hearken back to a text from II Samuel 6:9 wherein David exclaims concerning the Old Covenant “ark of the Lord:”

And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?”

If this one parallel leaves you unconvinced, there are more that may tip the scale for you. St. John the Baptist “leaped for joy” at the salutation of Mary (Luke 1:44), just as King David “danced before the Lord” in the ark of the Lord in II Samuel 6:14. Moreover, Mary “remained with [Elizabeth] for three months (Luke 1:56),” just as “the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months” in II Sam. 6:11'

Good enough for me.

And, no Catholics don't in any way believe that Mary created God.
Mary did not exist before the Second Person of the Trinity, who has always existed in the eternal now outside of time, but she did become his mother by contributing genetic matter to him (Rom. 1:3) and by carrying him in her womb (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35).

Mary was Jesus’ mother in the true sense. As the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus is God, and so Mary is the mother of God. Mary did not merely give birth to Jesus’ human nature. Mothers do not give birth to natures. They give birth to persons, and Jesus was a divine person. Again, to deny that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity would be to commit the heresy Nestorianism.

Not His nature; His human body.

 

[Charlie24]

Hi Charlie:

No, being blessed and 'highly favored' or 'full of grace' is very significant, however. Let's take a closer look at this.
And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Please consider what another Catholic being asked a very similar question and how He answered.

'Mother of the Lord means Mother of God, right? Isn’t Jesus our Lord and God?

Now you might say “The Greek word kurios or ‘lord’ can indeed be used to denote divinity but not necessarily so. It can be used to denote an earthly potentate or even false ‘lords’ or gods” (see Matt. 20:8; 21:40; I Cor. 8:5-6, etc.). And this is true.

The key to our discussion then is to ascertain how kurios is being used of Christ in Luke 1:43. Was it being used to describe Jesus with regard to his humanity alone, or with regard to his divinity?

Old Testament Type​

First, when Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry… why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me” (Luke 1:42-43), Mary was revealed to be the New Testament Ark of the Lord. Elizabeth’s words make this clear as they hearken back to a text from II Samuel 6:9 wherein David exclaims concerning the Old Covenant “ark of the Lord:”

And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?”

If this one parallel leaves you unconvinced, there are more that may tip the scale for you. St. John the Baptist “leaped for joy” at the salutation of Mary (Luke 1:44), just as King David “danced before the Lord” in the ark of the Lord in II Samuel 6:14. Moreover, Mary “remained with [Elizabeth] for three months (Luke 1:56),” just as “the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months” in II Sam. 6:11'

Good enough for me.

And, no Catholics don't in any way believe that Mary created God.
Mary did not exist before the Second Person of the Trinity, who has always existed in the eternal now outside of time, but she did become his mother by contributing genetic matter to him (Rom. 1:3) and by carrying him in her womb (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35).

Mary was Jesus’ mother in the true sense. As the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus is God, and so Mary is the mother of God. Mary did not merely give birth to Jesus’ human nature. Mothers do not give birth to natures. They give birth to persons, and Jesus was a divine person. Again, to deny that Mary gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity would be to commit the heresy Nestorianism.

I think it is very misleading and inappropriate to say Mary is the Mother of God.

There is nothing that sounds right about that. Any thoughts taken from that statement could only lead to heresy.

 

[Walter]

I think it is very misleading and inappropriate to say Mary is the Mother of God.

There is nothing that sounds right about that. Any thoughts taken from that statement could only lead to heresy.

Well, the title Theotokos' only became necessary to combat the heresy of Nestorianism.

I respect your opinion, however, and know how many Baptists object to the title 'Mother of God'.

 

[Walter]

Not His nature; His human body.

Does this clarify what Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox and many Anglicans believe?

• One Divine Person: Jesus is one divine person, not two separate persons (God and man).
• Person, Not Nature: Mary is the mother of the divine person, Jesus, not the source of His eternal divine nature.
• Theotokos: The Greek term Theotokos (God-bearer) signifies she gave birth to God incarnate.
• Biblical Basis: Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43), implying she is the mother of God.

 

[Cathode]

Come on, Cathode!

How in the world do you expect us to believe such history in the Church as Mary being taken to heaven body and soul at her death?

Who said that the Christianity is exclusively constructed from the Bible, protestants construct their beliefs from their human opinions of the bible, but the Church Jesus founded was on the Apostles and their preaching tradition, the bible didn't exist for 400 years.

This falls in line with Apostolic Succession, not of word of it in Scripture. I could bring up several other things.

Scripturally we see Mary in Heaven in Revelation. Remember that you have no authority to interpret anything different from scripture than the Apostolic Church, you are not authorised.

The protestant human traditions, have just taken it for granted, that scripture means what each man asserts it means. They never consider the possibility they could interpret their damnation from it.

The history of the Church can be whatever those men said it is and we would know no difference.

This makes no sense at all Charles. Just sounds like your mental preparation to ignore any history presented to you, because this is not your history.
The history of the church is whatever you decide in your head without evidence.

We can't accept that, Cathode. The Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and those men with their history?

The Scripture is inspired, but you aren't, you are unauthorised to interpret it.

 

[Cathode]

I think it is very misleading and inappropriate to say Mary is the Mother of God.

There is nothing that sounds right about that. Any thoughts taken from that statement could only lead to heresy.

Let me help you.

Mary is the Mother of God Incarnate.

She is the Mother of a Divine Person.

In peoples feverish detractions of Mary they find themselves detracting from Jesus Himself.

 

[Ascetic X]

Who said that the Christianity is exclusively constructed from the Bible, protestants construct their beliefs from their human opinions of the bible, but the Church Jesus founded was on the Apostles and their preaching tradition, the bible didn't exist for 400 years.

Bible didn’t exist for 400 years?

The Old Testament (Septuagint) was the Bible used by Jesus and his disciples, then more was added as the 4 gospels were written, plus letters by Paul, John, James, Peter. So scriptures were being used and circulated, by word of mouth and scrolls, from the very beginning of the Christian era.

You mean the final New Testament canon was largely recognized by the late 4th century, formally affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, establishing the same 27 books we have today, though the process of acceptance by all Christians took time.

When dubious traditions that contradicted scripture accumulated, the Protestants removed them, seeking a purer form of Christianity than the institution that was corrupted by Constantine, and as pagan pretended to convert and invaded the ranks, dragging their beliefs in and creating a weird hybrid.

 

[Cathode]

Bible didn’t exist for 400 years?

The Old Testament (Septuagint) was the Bible used by Jesus and his disciples, then more was added as the 4 gospels were written, plus letters by Paul, John, James, Peter. So scriptures were being used and circulated, by word of mouth and scrolls, from the very beginning of the Christian era.

You mean the final New Testament canon was largely recognized by the late 4th century, formally affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, establishing the same 27 books we have today, though the process of acceptance by all Christians took time.

It was the Catholic Church that determined the Old and New Testament Canon both, the Jews never settled their canon.

And in fact Christianity was never going to accept a canon from those who rejected Christ and persecuted Christianity.

When dubious traditions that contradicted scripture accumulated, the Protestants removed them, seeking a purer form of Christianity than the institution that was corrupted by Constantine, and as pagan pretended to convert and invaded the ranks, dragging their beliefs in and creating a weird hybrid.

I know this is what you have been told, but I encourage you read the history itself. There was no syncretism "creating a weird hybrid ", these two communities were antithetical to one another.

 

[Charlie24]

Who said that the Christianity is exclusively constructed from the Bible, protestants construct their beliefs from their human opinions of the bible, but the Church Jesus founded was on the Apostles and their preaching tradition, the bible didn't exist for 400 years.



Scripturally we see Mary in Heaven in Revelation. Remember that you have no authority to interpret anything different from scripture than the Apostolic Church, you are not authorised.

The protestant human traditions, have just taken it for granted, that scripture means what each man asserts it means. They never consider the possibility they could interpret their damnation from it.



This makes no sense at all Charles. Just sounds like your mental preparation to ignore any history presented to you, because this is not your history.
The history of the church is whatever you decide in your head without evidence.




The Scripture is inspired, but you aren't, you are unauthorised to interpret it.

There is no denomination on earth any closer to the truth of Scripture that the Baptists.

The Scripture says to "study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the words of truth."

We have our differences on what the truth actually is, but we all stay within the bounds of the Words of God to find that truth.

Building doctrine on anything other than the Word of God opens the door to heresy and the RCC is proof of it.

 

[MrW]

Mary is the Mother of Jesus in His humanity, not His Godhood. Jesus/God exists from all eternity.

 

[Tea]

It was the Catholic Church that determined the Old and New Testament Canon both, the Jews never settled their canon.

Jesus was a Jew who preached in the synagogues. Did He have a settled view on the Old Testament Canon?

Matthew 21:42 (ESV)
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

Matthew 22:31 (ESV)
And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:

I recognize that it took some time for the church to settle on what were and weren't canonical writings. But I believe what determines the canon is not based on dogma but rather is based on theological issues.

If Jesus could hold the Pharisees accountable to the Scriptures as the literal Word of God, why would it be any different for Christians? Jesus said His sheep hear His voice, and His sheep understood that they found it in Scripture.

Yes, Protestants raised the question of whether the Jews regarded seven of the books in the Catholic Bible as authoritative. More importantly, some content in those books seems to undermine Jesus' teachings on how a person has peace with God—valid reasoning for their rejection.

 

[Cathode]

Jesus was a Jew who preached in the synagogues. Did He have a settled view on the Old Testament Canon?

Matthew 21:42 (ESV)
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

Matthew 22:31 (ESV)
And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:

Jesus didn't settle a Canon, and there is no inspired book listing which books belong in the Canon. Really think about the implications.

What Jesus actually did was establish His Church, with the binding and loosing Authority. It was this Church guided by The Holy Spirit that Canonised the Scriptures.
So the Church that Canonised the Bible by The Holy Spirit, also interprets the Bible by The Holy Spirit.

Protestants thought that they could take the Catholic Bible and then each interpret it for himself. Hence massive conflict among "Bible aloners"

I recognize that it took some time for the church to settle on what were and weren't canonical writings. But I believe what determines the canon is not based on dogma but rather is based on theological issues.

The Catholic Church always held the scriptures from the time of the Apostles. I liken it to Mary concieving and carrying the Incarnate Word through persecution, The Catholic Church conceived and carried The Written Word of God through persecution and birthed it to the world.
No one knows the The Written Word of God like its Mother, the Catholic Church.
Though others make claims on The Bible, they had nothing to with the Bible.
The Catholic Church is the Mother of the Bible.

If Jesus could hold the Pharisees accountable to the Scriptures as the literal Word of God, why would it be any different for Christians? Jesus said His sheep hear His voice, and His sheep understood that they found it in Scripture.

Jesus Voice is spoken not written. Bible alone Protestantism rejected Jesus Voice when they only took written text as authoritative. That text told them to follow word of mouth tradition and written tradition together. So in essence they broke from both the written and spoken tradition together.

Yes, Protestants raised the question of whether the Jews regarded seven of the books in the Catholic Bible as authoritative. More importantly, some content in those books seems to undermine Jesus' teachings on how a person has peace with God—valid reasoning for their rejection.

Human reasoning.

The Apostles and their successors have Jesus Voice.

" He who listens to you, listens to Me "

The Apostolic Successors and Shepherds not only tell us what the Scripture is, they also tell us what it means.

 

[Cathode]

Mary is the Mother of Jesus in His humanity, not His Godhood. Jesus/God exists from all eternity.

No Mother is the Mother of a nature, but a Person. In Mary's case the Mother of a Divine Person, Jesus. Jesus was God in Mary's womb.

 

[Cathode]

There is no denomination on earth any closer to the truth of Scripture that the Baptists.

Which Baptist denomination, there are thousands. Baptists are a string of human founded institutions with fallible human interpretations and doctrines.

The Scripture says to "study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the words of truth."

We have our differences on what the truth actually is, but we all stay within the bounds of the Words of God to find that truth.

Building doctrine on anything other than the Word of God opens the door to heresy and the RCC is proof of it.

The Word of God comes in two forms. The Spoken and the Written, you are to follow both, not just the Written.

 

[Charlie24]

Which Baptist denomination, there are thousands. Baptists are a string of human founded institutions with fallible human interpretations and doctrines.




The Word of God comes in two forms. The Spoken and the Written, you are to follow both, not just the Written.

Let's overlook the various Popes throughout the centuries who have declared insane doctrine found nowhere in Scripture.

At least our squabbles are found in Scripture in some way.

 

[Cathode]

When dubious traditions that contradicted scripture accumulated, the Protestants removed them, seeking a purer form of Christianity than the institution that was corrupted by Constantine, and as pagan pretended to convert and invaded the ranks, dragging their beliefs in and creating a weird hybrid.

Christians/Catholics were walking lottery tickets to any pagan Roman that discovered them. When we read the accounts, massive numbers of properties were given to those who denounced Christians. This why Constantine told pagans to give back the property taken from Christians.

Constantine himself was Christian and not a syncretist, pagan and Christian worship was completely separate.

 

[Ascetic X]

Christians/Catholics were walking lottery tickets to any pagan Roman that discovered them. When we read the accounts, massive numbers of properties were given to those who denounced Christians. This why Constantine told pagans to give back the property taken from Christians.

Constantine himself was Christian and not a syncretist, pagan and Christian worship was completely separate.

Constantine was not Christian. He maintained pagan titles and practices for much of his reign, showing at best a gradual, complex shift to a meager. Christian orientation, rather than an immediate, sincere, total break from Roman polytheism.

In fact, he was only baptized by an Arian bishop (Eusebius of Nicomedia) on his deathbed in 337 AD. Constantine mainly professed to be “Christian” to gain the support of Christian citizens, which would act as a unifying force for his empire. On top of political strategy, he also used it to justify bloody military conquests.

The chi ro cross he claims to have seen, with “in this sign conquer”, a warmongering slogan, which caused him to make his murdering troops paint the cross on their shields, which to my mind is blasphemy. Jesus told Peter, “Put away thy sword.”

Incidentally, this was not really a Christian sign, but a pagan good luck symbol. By worldly standards, it was a brash and brilliant tactical move by Constantine to motivate his men, but it wasn’t truly Christian.


What Constantine didn’t comprehend were the religion’s deep divisions.

It wasn’t too long before he was putting out sectarian fires and, eventually, at the request of religious parties and factions who begged him to interfere, he married politics and religion. The result was a unification of church and state—a move that would be the catalyst to the egregious abuses that took place over the next 1,500 years, during what has come to be known as the Dark Ages.

 

[Cathode]

Constantine was not Christian. He maintained pagan titles and practices for much of his reign, showing at best a gradual, complex shift to a meager. Christian orientation, rather than an immediate, sincere, total break from Roman polytheism.

The chi ro cross he claims to have seen, with “in this sign conquer”, a warmongering slogan, which caused him to make his murdering troops paint the cross on their shields, which to my mind is blasphemy. Jesus told Peter, “Put away thy sword.”

Incidentally, this was not really a Christian sign, but a pagan good luck symbol. By worldly standards, it was a brash and brilliant tactical move by Constantine to motivate his men, but it wasn’t truly Christian.

What you are posting here is prejudicial filler?

The whole premise you hold is based on the idea that the Church corrupted completely for 1500 years, fell into pagan syncretism. This is historical revisionism that doesn't accord with Christian history.

Bible aloners are very prone to this, because they have no history beyond 500 years old, so a prejudiced legend has to be fabricated. Anything prior to 500 years ago has to narrate Catholicism in a negative light, thus justifying their rebellion against the Catholic Church.

Lazy glazed eyes that don't want to find anything but the narrative they want, are actually robbing themselves preferring revisionist mythology.

I don't see intellectual honesty much among Bible aloners, one admission to a truth leads to others, so they never admit one point, they can never admit one point, this how they are known. Slaves to the narrative. Total corruption till the second messiah Luther appeared preaching a different Gospel.

If they can privately interpret The Holy Word of God, they can even more easily privately interpret Christian history to suit themselves. Truth doesn't matter to them, but their all justifying narrative.

In fact, he was only baptized by an Arian bishop (Eusebius of Nicomedia) on his deathbed in 337 AD. Constantine mainly professed to be “Christian” to gain the support of Christian citizens, which would act as a unifying force for his empire. On top of political strategy, he also used it to justify bloody military conquests.

Many Christians left Baptism till the last minute because they believed it was regeneration and plenary in its effects.

What Constantine didn’t comprehend were the religion’s deep divisions.

It wasn’t too long before he was putting out sectarian fires and, eventually, at the request of religious parties and factions who begged him to interfere, he married politics and religion. The result was a unification of church and state—a move that would be the catalyst to the egregious abuses that took place over the next 1,500 years, during what has come to be known as the Dark Ages.

What Constantine wanted was all the Bishops gathered in Council to settle certain Christian Doctrines.

 

[Cathode]

Let's overlook the various Popes throughout the centuries who have declared insane doctrine found nowhere in Scripture.

Let's examine the countless popes in Bible alonism, for every protesting denomination there is a self appointed figure who proports to interpret the public revelation of Scripture for all. It doesn't matter if he or she interprets doctrines in complete confliction to all others.

Catholics only have one Pope, and a singular Apostolic tradition to explain Scripture

At least our squabbles are found in Scripture in some way.

Squabbles?

Even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose. This was demonstrated at the temptation of The Lord in the desert.

Bible alonism birthed relativism into the modern world, where each man thinks he can interpret what the Bible means to him.

Forget Truth setting you free, fallible human opinion is just as good they said.

Forget every heretic quotes scripture to support his pet heresy.

It's not the Authority of Scripture at question, it's the Authority of those who interpret Scripture that matters.

The Catholic Church has Apostolic Authority, first demonstrated by determining the Canon itself, no one else did that.