Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
Do our Catholic children and most adults know what these images teach?
All of us know one of the elephants in the room of the Catholic Church. Our religious education programs are not handing on the essence of our Catholic Faith, our parents are befuddled about their role in handing on the faith and the materials we use are vapid or if good do not make an impression on young minds. We are afraid of asking for memorization and thus most don't remember anything they've learned about God and Church other than some niceties and feel good emotions.
I teach each class of our grades 1-6 (we don't have 7th or 8th) each Thursday, rotating classes from week to week. For the last two years I have used Baltimore Catechism #1 as my text book. It is wonderful to use with children and it is so simple yet has so much content. If Catholics, all Catholics, simply studied Baltimore Catechism #1, we would have very knowledgeable Catholics.
These past two years I've used Baltimore Catechism #2 with our adult religious program which we call Coffee and Conversation following our 9:30 AM Sunday Mass, which coincides with our CCD program which we call PREP (Parish Religious Education Program).
This #2 book has more content and is for middle school, but upper elementary school children must have been more capable of more serious content back when this book was formulated and used through the mid 1960's because it is a great book to use with adults and not childish at all. We all use this same book as a supplemental book for the RCIA because it is so clear, nobly simple and chocked full of content!
Yes, there are some adjustments that need to be made to some chapters, but not that many, in light of Vatican II and the new emphasis we have on certain aspects of Church that are not present in the Baltimore Catechism. But these are really minor.
What is more important though is that when the Baltimore Catechism was used through the mid 1960's it was basically the only book that was used for children in elementary and junior high school. It was used across the board in the USA thus uniting all Catholics in learning the same content. There was not, in other words, a cottage industry of competing publishing houses selling new books and different content each year.
The same thing has occurred with liturgical music, a cottage industry of big bucks has developed around the sale of new hymnals, missalettes and new music put on the open market for parishes to purchase. It is a money making scheme.
Why do our bishop allow this to happen in both liturgical music and parish catechesis? The business of selling stuff to parishes and making mega bucks off of it is a scandal that has not be addressed.
In the meantime, our liturgies suffer and become fragmented because every parish uses a different resource for liturgical music and the same is true of religious formation, everyone uses something different of differing quality or no quality at all.
Isn't it time to wake up and move forward with tried and true practices that were tossed out in favor of a consumerist's approach to our faith that has weakened our liturgies, our parishes and our individual Catholics?
I'm pretty sure you did notice that I provided link to source which cited that 1987 Edition. In your own usage, the citation towards that edition as source that you yourself openly provided being here otherwise seeming ignored.
This very issue has arisen before on FR, and with the same nasty twistedness, focus placed singularly to that one phrase in question to the exclusion of all else, not only other surrounding information as presented, but also similar likes of which be available through any number of "scholarly" historical work & publication, resulting or leaving the drive-by posting/sniping/impugning of source approach, in practice, being itself anything bUT actual scholarship itself, even as it derides [ahem] "poor scholarship".
All of which irritates me to no end, leaving myself and more than a few others wondering if that is much itself the point, a goal behind the impetus to drive any and all who refuse blind submission to "sola ecclesiasia", and whom take exception to argument of assertion brought by way of rhetorical wordsmith tap-dancing--- right TO the edge if not right over it.
It is earthly & demonic in it's origins, that I do know, for I know and can see it's fruit, no matter how piously camouflaged. Yet we must resist putting hand to that latch (such as poetically sang of in regard of another sort of interpersonal relationship) regardless of all the incessant pushing to do so. But still I will raise my own voice and cry out loudly, but not into a void.
I do thank you again, for your efforts of exactitude, and reticence, though perhaps it may not be your duty at this juncture to chase down a '87 copy of that particular encyclopedia --- for at this stage it be more incumbent upon those who bring complaint, to in actuality establish factual basis for their complaints. Item by item. I mean -- is that not the standard to which we ourselves are continually being held?
So don't feel too obligated to spend time you may not have to waste (since you are moving, or have just moved family domicile) on that one small item from "the Catholic Encyclopedia" of 1987, for the overall positional argument is scarcely reliant upon that extensive but still rather "iffy", source, for reason of it itself being a quite highly and stealthily editorialized combination of history/apologetic/polemic which cannot help but make mention of certain historical facts and conditions (in attempt to be taken seriously?) even as it goes to some (sly) lengths attempting to polish the more problematic to Romanist apologetic portions into insignificance.
As to that which you presented in the bullet point listing in reply 1472 for sake of wider information there, and in hopes of actual review of concept (the troubles with Mariology) taken at risk of yet more impugning of source, and further high-horsed a priori dismissal; the following commentary can be seen to apply;
The above chart indicates that Mary’s Person and Work is extremely parallel to that of Jesus Christ. This is why Dr. Martin refers to, "Rome’s systematic effort to raise Mary to Deity." Walter Martin, The Roman Catholic Church in History (Livingston, NJ: Christian Research Institute, Inc., 1960), p. 54.He also makes the following important comments:
I have in my library hundreds of pamphlets, manuscripts and books all published with the official imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church. In every one of them, language which is applied to God alone in Scripture is applied to the Virgin Mary. She is worshipped: she is given almost every title of Christ. Thus, they are subtly but systematically raising her to a place of equality with our Lord.... Worship, prayers, shrines, and even altars in churches have been consecrated to her around the earth. The healing grottoes are seldom dedicated to Jesus of Nazareth, but to "Our Lady of Lourdes," "Our Lady St. Anne de Beaupre," "Our Lady of Fatima," etc. The statues which are seen in Roman Catholic homes are invariably of Mary. The largest niches in Roman Catholic churches are occupied by images of Mary. The preponderance of prayers are to Mary, and the "Hail, Mary" is repeated in the Rosary continually.
With such as the above being important in light of what is mentioned from earlier in presentation at the same source [linked above];
As H. M. Carson remarks, "The development of Mariology has been accompanied by an ever-increasing tendency to accord Mary a worship that, in much popular devotion, is indistinguishable from that offered to God alone. H. M. Carson, Dawn or Twilight? A Study of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1976), p. 128.For example, when the average Roman Catholic invokes the aid of Mary as a heavenly, all powerful, omniscient intercessor, or to beseech Jesus for them, or to help forgive their sins, it is hard to imagine that in that precise moment they are mentally distinguishing in a split second between latria, dulia and hyperdulia. "Rome may deny that Mary is worshipped as God. But to attribute to her powers which involve omniscience and omnipresence, if she is to hear [and answer] the prayers of millions, is to accord to her what belongs to God alone. Furthermore, the prayers themselves are phrased in such a way that it is hard to distinguish them from those offered to God." pg.29 ibid
Thank God for your encouragement, but i do come short, and as i do seek to give proper and valid attribution then even fault finding criticism that spurs me to be more diligent. I recall checking out Ankerberg/Weldon’s book and finding the quote was there, and the next step is to get the 87 CE version and check it out.
James 2:1-13 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Not when you are smarter than the egg. You just have to freeze the egg.
Peace be with you.
The results at times refute themselves, even in the same sentence, though more typically each error of assumption which is part of the overall storyliine, is tied well to some other subtlety, with it generally meshing well enough (if one puts on the Rome-colored glasses) that the slight changes become mistaken for truth itself, when in actuality when they do depart from scripture but stay near enough in spirit to truth -- can still be misunderstood when examining those items with eyes of flesh, rather than spirit --- and so it's away we go, off to the races, with ever more magic moveable rabbit holes to trip the unwary who've been enticed into to giving chase.
When you take a child and, year after year repeat the rote dogmas so often that it gets committed to memory, the person becomes indoctrinated into the religion with few ever venturing further to fully grasp the essence of why something is believed. It happens in all religions, of course. The subject of this thread concerned the illiteracy of the laity (people who aren't the clergy) when it comes to the tenets of the Catholic faith. Many Catholics on this forum blame inadequate catechism for the many former Catholics who unashamedly voice their reasons here for leaving the Catholic church for the true Gospel of the grace of God. Such a defense is rejected out of hand by some because it is impossible to accept that truth can be found outside of the walls of the Roman church - it IS what their Popes have asserted, after all. No manner of explanation or argument can be accepted since to do so would require the rejection of what was established as truth in the past. Though they find themselves trapped between the two dogmas - "no salvation outside of the Roman church" proclaimed by one Pope (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) or "the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ" (Lumen Gentium, 15), some here will NEVER accept that millions of souls have found the true faith of Christ and belong to the universal body of Christ. It is easier to ridicule and mock, intimidate, deride and scold - and which just might help them sleep at night - than to welcome those who have received and follow the Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and truth.
I try to not let them get to me and will not cease to speak as the Lord leads me. God bless you both as you continue to be open to the direction of the Holy Spirit as we do the work he has created for us. Your efforts are NOT in vain!
I've retracted a few myself, or been lead to reconsider some lines of argument if not drop them entirely.
Exactly insolence, as rather than "continued instances of error" it is you have been shown to be making false allegations and guilty of the poor scholarship you alleged, and can only escape being exposed again because we are not permitted to carry debates from past threads. But your false charges can be and have been substantiated, for which we are still waiting for apology, and anyone who wants to see what i am referring to can email me.
I appreciate your objectivity as one whom had engaged in debate with me, but i do need more patience (like with my arthritic fingers which do not type too well!), but God is the one who is the God of all patience, as towards me.
Thanks for your informative reply.
The Bible teaches believers will be judged as the judgment seat of Christ which happens at His coming, which is when the first resurrection, that of the just, takes place, which i see as the rapture, and there they will be rewarded according to their manner of work, gaining rewards or suffering shame and loss and the grievous displeasure of the Lord (not the it is necessarily one or the other, as one may have some of both, and must overall have a faith that effects works).
The GWTJ of Rv. 20:11-15 is where the lost are rewarded according to their manner of work, as while all lost are damned and in Hell, there are different degrees of suffering in the lake of fire which hell is tossed into. (Lk. 10:12-14; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15)
"Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. " (1 Corinthians 4:5)
"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: " (1 Peter 1:7)
"And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. " (1 Peter 5:4)
"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. " (2 Timothy 4:8)
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. " (1 John 2:28)
"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. " (Revelation 11:18)
This is contrary to anyone being already crowned and reigning in Heaven (though they are with the Lord) or believers enduring purifying torment commencing at death. See here on 1 Cor. 3:15ff.
[Going further into eschatology, the Bible teaches that the resurrected/raptured saints (who have part in the first resurrection - the resurrection of life:” Jn. 5:29a) will return with the LORD from Heaven to execute judgment, and to reign with with Him for the 1,000 year millennium. (Rv. 2:27; 19:15; 20:6 - and during which the Jews shall be tested): “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 1:14-15; cf. Mal. 3:18; Mt 16:27; 19:28; Mt 24:30,31; 25:31; Lk. 22:20; 2Th 1:7,8; Re 1:7; 5:10; 19:6-20; 20:4) “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Mt. 13:43) And as stars differs from one another in glory, (1Cor. 15:41) it is not unreasonable to suppose that some saints might shine brighter than another for eternity (with all rejoicing in that), depending upon how single their eye was on earth, (Mt. 6:22) and how they responded to the light and grace they received. (Lk. 12:48)]
The most biting disagreements are not personal with me, and that’s what makes a spirited debate useful and enjoyable.
I’ve said in the past that if I poke a finger in your eye it will only be to the first joint.
Cheers!
Problem for most Catholics is that we have better memories about their behavior than they’d like or hoped for.
It's turtles; all the way down.
It's RAHAB's complete cooperation that REALLY mattered.
At least the Bible mentions the things she DID! If she had NOT protected the spies...
Matthew 1:5
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.” For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions concerning the burial of his bones.
23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29 By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the army had marched around them for seven days.
31 By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.
32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
Poor Mary... dissed by the writer of Hebrews. The hooker Rahab gets mentioned for HER obedience; but Mary? Nary A word.
Some folks think this differently: IIRC
Some folks think this differently: IIRC
You are correct...However, notice that daniel1212 suggests that it is the Judgment seat of Christ at Christ's Coming, not the Great White Throne Judgment which takes place 1000 years later...
And while this falls right into the Catholic religion's hand, it is important to note that we agree on doctrinal issues which put us right smack into the Body of Christ...
After reading daniel’s previous longer post, I can say that Daniel and I agree on the events of the two separate Judgments...
No, we don't. Scripture only says:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The only requirements Mary had to fulfill were to be of the house of David, have the right lineage, and to be a virgin.
She fulfilled both those requirements. Nothing else was necessary.
Jesus received his body and blood exclusively from Mary and Her womb was the Tabernacle for 9 months. No Mary, no Blood. You owe Her much more than you care to admit.
Not one shred of Scriptural support for that. We owe her nothing for her obedience to God any more than we owe anyone else for their obedience to God. We all answer to God and God alone for what we do in this body on this earth.
Jesus could have been born or any Jewish virgin girl who had the right lineage.
Co-operation? She wasn't given a choice. The angel TOLD her what was going to happen to her. He never asked her permission.
We owe Mary nothing. We owe God everything.
It is at least true that no excess of praise rarely seems too much for Rome.
When one reads the supererogatory Marian praise and the reasoning of Newman below many years after the Reformation then one can see how easily the disputed description attributed to the CE could be reality.
It intends to express that God is her son, as truly as any one of us is the son of his own mother. If this be so, what can be said of any creature whatever, which may not be said of her? What can be said too much, so that it does not compromise the attributes of the Creator? He indeed might have created a being more perfect, more admirable, than she is; He might have endued that being, so created, with a richer grant of grace, of power, of blessedness: but in one respect she surpasses all even possible creations, viz., that she is Mother of her Creator .
It is this awful title, which both illustrates and connects together the two prerogatives of Mary, on which I have been lately enlarging, her sanctity and her greatness. It is the issue of her sanctity; it is the origin of her greatness.; What dignity can be too great to attribute to her who is as closely bound up, as intimately one, with the Eternal Word, as a mother is with a son? What outfit of sanctity, what fullness and redundance of grace, what exuberance of merits must have been hers,...
Basil of Seleucia says that, "she shines out above all the martyrs as the sun above the stars, and that she mediates between God and men." "Run through all creation in your thought," says Proclus, "and see if there be one equal or superior to the Holy Virgin, Mother of God." And St. Cyril, too, at Ephesus, "Hail. Mary, Mother of God,...through Whom the Holy Trinity is sanctified . . . through whom Angels and Archangels rejoice, devils are put to flight.. (Works taken from "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II); http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
And what is the warrant for this novel hyperexlatation of an instrument of God, the like of which is seen nowhere in Scripture and in number of honorific titles (http://tomsdomain.com/rosary/titles.htm) surpasses that seen given to Christ by the same sources.
The alleged basis is that she is the mother is the mother of God, and blessed above women, full of grace so that no sin is attributed to her. Mary was indeed a chosen instrument to incarnate the Divine Son of God, through whom the body the Father prepared for Christ (Heb. 10:5) came, yet she owes all that she is to God, and is blessed because of that, not because she is described as being the most righteous soul on earth.
For as regards virtue, this no more required her to be sinless than those holy men whom God used to bring forth His Divine word, (2Pt. 1:121) or Mary's parents themselves, or Israel, of whom The Holy Spirit states "as concerning the flesh Christ came , who is over all, God blessed for ever," (Rm. 9:5) and it is certain the nation was not sinless. Note also the Holy Spirit's qualifier, "as concerning the flesh" (not as it Israel was the author of His Deity) which restriction applies to Mary as well.
And without detracting from her humility and virtue seen in Scripture, and as her privileged role as mother, what is missing is a record of extensive tested virtue and love for all the church like as the Holy Spirit record of Paul, who is relatively marginalized by Catholics compared to Mary.
It is not written of Mary such things as that she was, "in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? " (2 Corinthians 11:23-29)
And thru whom most of the NT came, nor can any sin be attributed to him as a new creation with certainty. Yet where is the consecration to Paul among Catholics such as is given to Mary, or even a tenth of the laudatory titles and praise and (statues and prayers) given to him among Catholics, who can only wish Mary had a tenth of the record of Paul, whose testimony of his tested virtue and use of God is so extensive that some have composed a list supporting him as "pope Paul" (in satirical mimicry in response to RC exaltation of Peter)? And thinking of him (or Peter) above (or less) that which is written is also wrong as well.
As Ratzinger acknowledged, Mary, “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (“God and the world;” p. 296 ) nor is her appearance always totally positive.
Mary is called "full of grace" by Catholics, quoting Lk. 1:28, yet the Scriptures do not say she was "full of grace," but highly favoured, as there is only one word used, which is the same as said of all believers in Eph. 1:6, which can denote "graced" or favored."
Trying to find support for superlatives from Aramaic is invalid as we must submit to the language the Holy Spirit chose to express the words of Christ in. As for other arguments, see here .
Jn. 1:14 uniquely states that Jesus was “full [plērēs, which is used 17 times, all denoting “full”] of grace [charis=grace] The key phrase in Lk. 1:28 simply says “Hail [chairō=rejoice, greeting, etc.] grace [chairō, denoting to be graced, favored, enriched with grace as in Eph.1:6.
Besides the lack of warrant for exalting Mary as the holiest of all, the hyperexaltation of Mary is based on her being the mother of God. While technically this is true in the limited sense that Mary was the chosen vessel thru whom her Creator was incarnated, and nurtured him as a child, yet her own body and blood came thru the One she birthed as a human being.
The unqualified use of the term "mother of God" (Theotokos) predominates Catholicism, and in which Catholics greatly emphasize what Christ owes to Mary, as if God actually owes anything to an instrument of His, while like Israel, the honor she has is due to God choosing to use her in His grace, and in His grace He rewards faith, (Heb. 10:35) and recompensing their works done by grace. This reason for Mary being blessed and her debt to God is far less prominent amid all the adulation of her as being the mother of God and holiest of all etc.
The abundant use of the term "mother of God" is part of the Catholic emphasis on what Christ owes Mary, in which case He also owes Israel, the corporate body "of whom Christ came, God blessed for ever," but Rm. 9-11 provides the right perspective.
Instead of the emphasis being on Mary's debt to Christ, the abundant use of the term "mother of God" is that it most naturally conveys that Mary is ontologically the mother of God, as if Mary was the author of the Divinity of Christ.
And the counsel of Ratzinger regarding title 'Co-redemptrix' is applicable here", he at least recognized that the title 'Co-redemptrix,'
“departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...” For, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word 'Co-redemptrix' would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way." (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
For indeed, the objection to the term "mother of God" is not that it cannot be correctly used in a qualified sense, and Lk. 1:43 (the mother of my Lord should come to me) may arguably be used to support that (if the Divinity of the Messiah was being understood), but that its use is part of the exaltation of Mary which not only far exceeds that which it written of her or anyone in the tempered manner that the Holy Spirit describes His instruments, but conveys things which are not Scriptural. And in which only the Lord is set forth as the Heavenly object of prayer and praise, and being a mother of a child normally means providing and thus being the same nature as it, which in this sense would require Mary to be Divine if she were ontologically the mother of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.