Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Derail thread on Mary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Derail thread on Mary

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    There have been renegade popes in the past.

    Its ok, It was just a hypothetical I thought of.
    And the fact that, despite the utter scumbags (and occasionally actual heretics) that have been popes, the Holy Spirit has miraculously preserved the papacy from officially teaching error.
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    And the fact that, despite the utter scumbags (and occasionally actual heretics) that have been popes, the Holy Spirit has miraculously preserved the papacy from officially teaching error.
    Depending on your definition of "officially" (and pretending, for the moment, that the filioque is not error).
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Depending on your definition of "officially" (and pretending, for the moment, that the filioque is not error).
      The filioque is for fraternal discussion between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. I'm not even sure we're in real disagreement about it. Depends entirely on what 'proceeds from' means.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
        And the fact that, despite the utter scumbags (and occasionally actual heretics) that have been popes, the Holy Spirit has miraculously preserved the papacy from officially teaching error.
        That error would include Mariology...........right?


        Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mossrose View Post
          That error would include Mariology...........right?
          Which part of it? I've seen some protestants claim that its wrong to call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, not realizing what that would imply about Jesus and His Divinity.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            Which part of it? I've seen some protestants claim that its wrong to call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, not realizing what that would imply about Jesus and His Divinity.

            We can start with co-redemptrix.


            Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mossrose View Post
              We can start with co-redemptrix.
              There is no infallible statement on this. Though personally I don't see the problem with this (as its not a doctrine and dogma of the Church I won't defend it though, you're free to believe against it).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                Which part of it? I've seen some protestants claim that its wrong to call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, not realizing what that would imply about Jesus and His Divinity.
                Ok, then, let's go here.

                Please explain what Catholics mean when they call Mary the mother of God.


                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  There is no infallible statement on this. Though personally I don't see the problem with this (as its not a doctrine and dogma of the Church I won't defend it though, you're free to believe against it).
                  Pope John Paul certainly was enthralled with Mary.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                    Ok, then, let's go here.

                    Please explain what Catholics mean when they call Mary the mother of God.
                    Its not really controversial. Any mother does atleast two things to her son: after he comes into being in her womb, she carries him to term inside her and delivers him.

                    Christians agreed fairly early that Christ was fully man and fully God.

                    She's therefore Theotokos (The God Bearer) also called Mother of God. Because what she carried inside her womb, while fully human was also fully God.

                    Beyond that she dutifully raised Jesus from His infancy until his mission. Along with St Joseph, His guardian father.

                    And she is the source of his humanity (typically along with the father, though since Jesus was conceived by becoming incarnate without the aid of Joseph, the Virgin Mary is the sole material cause of Jesus humanity). He took it materially from her.

                    God is of couse in the end the ultimate course of anything. This is not denied here.

                    No Catholic or Eastern Orthodox has ever asserted, nor has this even been held by the uneducated people in old days, that the Virgin Mary was the source of Christ's Divine nature.

                    But if one denies that the Virgin Mary was Mother of God, one would also implicitly deny that Jesus was God.

                    Its not even possible to say that the Virgin Mary only carried the humanity of Jesus. Because that would imply that Jesus was merely human at one point and later became God as well. Or might also imply the heresy of Christ not being God while crucified.

                    So for these reasons, and others, all Christians should honour the Virgin Mary by calling her Mother of God.
                    Last edited by Leonhard; 04-09-2015, 09:24 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                      Pope John Paul certainly was enthralled with Mary.
                      Its hard to be a Catholic and not be enthralled by her. However the positions on the Virgin Mary, of her being coredemptrix and coremediatrix, aren't dogma and weren't defined to be so by St John Paul II.

                      They don't bind on anyones conscience, so I don't need to defend them in a discussion on infallibility of the pope and the magisterium.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                        We can start with co-redemptrix.
                        Co redemptrix wasn't Dogma never defined, however I was never comfortable with this word as I felt it was very bad terminology. The definition is Mary plays a small role in our salvation as she agreed to undo Eve's "no" by agreeing to Bring our Lord Jesus into the world for our Salvation.
                        Now to address Mother of God: She bore Jesus who is God. The term denotes her role as the Earthly mother of Jesus who is God. Another term is God-bearer or Theotokos which may perhaps be more appropriate, that she bore God the Son in her womb. Hence the title of Reverence. I greatly appreciate this more than the co-redemptrix/mediatrix as I find Theotokos says enough about Mary's Role in God's Plan for salvation.
                        A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                        George Bernard Shaw

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cath
                          the definition is Mary plays a small role in our salvation
                          Sorry. To say that any person plays any sort of role in our salvation is error.

                          She was the human vessel to carry the Saviour, but she needed Him the same as anybody else. She is blessed because of her willingness to obey God in this, but should not be venerated as she has been by the Catholics and Orthodox.

                          This is an unreconcilable point that can't be bridged by any ecumenism.


                          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                            Sorry. To say that any person plays any sort of role in our salvation is error.
                            Did anyone ever teach you to pray and had a proximate hand in your coming to know God?

                            It wasn't all you and God alone. Some printed the Bible you read and someone translated it.

                            Are humans the source of our salvation? No of course not. But we do coorporate with God. The Virgin Mary is the single greatest example of this. She believed in Christ before anyone else, and stood at the foot of the Cross along with those who loved him the most.

                            She was the human vessel to carry the Saviour,
                            This makes her His Mother.

                            but she needed Him the same as anybody else.
                            This has always been affirmed by the Church. In the Canticle of Mary she even says it herself "...for He has looked with favour on His lowly servant."

                            She is blessed because of her willingness to obey God in this,
                            Amen!

                            but should not be venerated as she has been by the Catholics and Orthodox.
                            If one can't honour any saint for their actions, I'd agree you can't honour the Virgin Mary. If you ought to honour the saints, then you ought more than anyone else to honour the Virgin Mary for the grace God gave her.

                            This is an unreconcilable point that can't be bridged by any ecumenism.
                            There's no ecumenism about this. Protestants, and I've seen staunch Calvinists agree, that the Virgin Mary should be called Mother of God.

                            Both Luther and Calvin honoured her in their writings. Using both of the titles I've used in this discussion. And it goes back in the Church as we basically have writings on her. St Augustine painted her greater than I did here.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Apologies for not responding sooner: long day at work and haven't been able to log in until a little while ago. Hopefully what I'm saying isn't too redundant with what Leon has said.

                              Cath and Leonhard are right to say that co-redemptrix and mediatrix are not infallibly defined, though the Immaculate Conception and Assumption both meet the criteria for papal infallibility. We can get to those later, and no doubt you already have objections to at least the former (Romans 3:23, anyone?), but I think it's better to start with the earlier stuff. Incidentally, if any of y'all are looking for a readable book on mariology, the 3-part series Mary, Mother of the Son by Mark Shea is an exploration by an evangelical convert to Catholicism of the Church's teachings about Mary. Shea himself has no particular devotion to Mary: the book is his attempt to make sense of why other people do (iirc, the 3rd book is explicitly an exploration of the marian dogmas: I may well dig up my copy and refer to it if this conversation goes on long enough). That said, let's dive in.

                              The title of theotokos was officially recognized by an ecumenical council as a definitive repudiation of Nestorianism and an unequivocal commitment to the truth of the Incarnation: that Jesus was fully God and fully human. Saying that Mary is the mother of God is saying that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, that the divine and human were truly united in the person of Christ. To deny that Mary gave birth to God is to deny that Christ was fully and truly divine. The title, "Mother of God," in other words, says more about Jesus than it does about Mary.

                              I happen to believe that this pattern holds for other marian doctrines and dogmas: when we talk about Mary, we're fortifying our commitment to some other significant theological or soteriological concept. Or, as Mary herself put it, her soul magnifies the Lord. The immaculate conception and the assumption, as I understand them, point us toward a better understanding of the Church and of God's infinitely loving plan, but I think it's better if we just focus for now on the title of "Theotokos". Mossy, do you have any further questions about that title?
                              Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X