Catholic Analysis: Mariology is Biblical

Vivificat! - A Catholic Blog of Commentary and Opinion ^ | 27 December 2005 | Teófilo

[Pyro7480]

If pointing out the obvious is "propaganda" in your world, then you have truly lost the argument.

Your interpretation of Scripture is what is at fault here, not Scripture itself.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

No it isn't. There is exactly one passage that you can distinctly draw on--and then only if you take the rather poor Latin translation of the Greek.

Actually at least a dozen. But that wasn't my point. You recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity is only implicit in Scripture ("it's there if you know where to look"). Some of our passages (Lk 11:27-28, Lk 1) are close to explicit but we always recognize that even explicit passages involve interpretation.

Again, your attempts to read Mary into the Ark are pure eisegesis

You came back and want to argue interpretation with me (poor Greek--of course I think your interpretation that our reading of the Greek is "eisegesis" (I assume the passage you have in mind here is "full of grace/highly favored" in Lk 1) is, how shall I say it, a case of "interpretation." One man's eisegesis is another man's exegesis. Sticks and stones can break my bones but words like eisegesis are interpretation claims, not empirical facts.

If one lined up all the implicit, nearly-explicit passages regarding veneration of Mary on one side of sheet of paper and all the passages implying the Trinity on the other side, I do think the Mary side of the sheet would be more impressive. But that's just my interpretation. Your interpretation is that the Trinity side wins hands down.

But that's your interpretation. Which was my point. You conceded that the Scripturality of the doctrine of the Trinity is a matter of "knowing where to look," a matter of how to interpret passages A, B, and C. That's exactly what we claim about Mary--it's a matter of knowing where to look, how to interpret passages X, Y, and Z.

And to this you respond that it's so clear (to you) that our exegesis is eisegesis. Now, what would happen if I responded by saying that your interpretation of our Mary passages is pure eisegesis? Doesn't get us very far, does it? So put a sock in it with the "pure eisegesis" stuff. It's not a very helpful argument.

[Pyro7480]

Mary should be honored for all time as the Mother of our Lord and in that sense is theokotos, but to say Mary is the mother of Christ's Divine Nature goes beyond heresy.

The Divine Nature of Christ cannot be separated from His Human Nature.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And Protestants don't claim that they have the "right belief"? Then what is this about?

I'm neither protestant nor Catholic.

Not all Catholics are arrogant just as not all Protestants are militant haters of Catholic beliefs. If you paint all of us with a broad brush, how can you expect us not to do the same? And see how you put it "Perceived by many" Maybe they just don't love a Catholic. Maybe they don't know us, they only know what is said about us.

I appreciate the comparison and agree that protestants do the same thing. Yet I wasn't addressing my post to a protestant, I was addressing it to you.

Ratzinger himself has a clue to the official stand on Protestants. You are our brothers in Christ. I'll see if I can find it.

Whoop de do. I'm not Christian therefore not a brother in Christ. Ratzing is just another human with an opinion.

[gcruse]

Tradition is enough to give your Churches authority

"If it's wrong long enough, it's right," doesn't work for me.

[netmilsmom]

Ooops! Then I guess you don't have the same relationship with Christ that I do :-)!

Would you mind if I say I'll be praying for your peace anyway?

[Pyro7480]

Then you disagree with the Athanasian Creed and the Church Fathers.

I don't. Maybe I'm just saying it wrong? By the way, what "kind" of Christian are you?

My point is that Christ has two natures - Human and Divine. Some Protestants say that Mary is "only" the Mother of the human nature of Jesus. This is to make a neo-Nestorian error.

[gcruse]

I don't feel that is necessary for me to justify every Catholic belief from a Bible verse...

Why is sola scriptura rejected?

it's...unscriptural.

Yet the first quote says scriptuality is not necessary to justify beliefs. 

[Pyro7480]

Therefore, just as the Fathers correctly stated, Mary is mother of Christ's humanity but not the mother of HIs Divine Nature.

Mary is the mother of One Person, Jesus Christ, who had two natures, human and divine.

[annalex]

The Divine Nature of Christ, to have a "mother" would mean that His Divine Nature was born and had a beginning with Mary

Your claim is pure nestorianism. A woman gives birth to a person, not to a nature. In case of Mary, she gave biorth to the entire second person of the Trinity, and by extension, she is mother of God. No, it does not mean that God has his beginning with Mary. Please read the Ephesian canons, a reference to which I posted in 67.

[Pyro7480]

Wikipedia gives a good explanation (for once):

"Calling Mary either Theotokos or "Mother of God" (ÌÑ ÈÕ) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed. The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: 'He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos.'"

[Pyro7480]

The only kind there is, a wretched sinner redeemed soley by the grace of God through the pure washing of the blood of Christ.

I'm thinking that you are Eastern Orthodox specifically.

[Pyro7480]

Words do mean things, and neither Cyril nor the Chalcedonians meant that Mary gave birth to the Divine Nature of Christ, but that Mary gave birth to "theanthropos" after the supernatural conception of One Person with two natures.

That's what I meant when I said "The Divine Nature of Christ cannot be separated from His Human Nature." I just ommitted that this took place after the Annunciation.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Would you mind if I say I'll be praying for your peace anyway?

I can't tell you whom to pray or not pray for.