Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawg

When statements are made that say that Mary elevates Jesus to Godhead, I have to question.

There are many statements about Mary that I would question. I do know that you (Catholics) believe in Jesus as the Son of God, and that he is one with God. Where I start to question is when you start to elevate, venerate, pray to, or worship anything OTHER than God. Not even the angels (who are perfect created beings) accept worship and council against it. To me, praying to saints instead of going directly to God is like calling the Hawaii Fire Department when your house in Seattle is on fire.

Please note: I will not EVER call Catholics heretics, because it is all God’s will and discernment, not mine. I, and my beliefs, have been called heretical by many of your (Catholic)friends. I state my beliefs as found in the Bible, which I hold as God’s word. Whenever a conflict arises between God’s word ands the Church (yours, mine, others) I will boldly and soundly use the Bible to defend my position. Please note also, that I believe that only scripture is God breathed, and therefore the writings of the Church Fathers, though interesting and insiteful, are NOT God breathed and therefore prone to error.

Remember, words mean things, and when a statement says Mary elevates Jesus to Godhead, I’ve got to call it.

Go in peace, brother.


212 posted on 04/03/2008 10:50:56 AM PDT by irishtenor (Check out my blog at http://boompa53.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]


To: irishtenor; al_c
You converse like a civilized human being. Your disagreements are expressed with reason and candor.

I like that.

On to something topical:

Al_c didn't say "Mary elevates Jesus to Godhead." Everybody here would rightly object to such a statement. What al_c said was, "On the contrary, referring to Mary as "Mother of God" elevates Jesus Christ."

Meaning, referring to Mary as "Mother of God" acknowledges that her Son, Jesus, is God. It does not "make" him God. It lifts up His Name by acknowledging His Divinity.

Anything you want to add, al_c?

235 posted on 04/03/2008 11:03:34 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Pray (Pray!) Oh yes we pray (Pray!) - We've got to pray just to make it today." ---- MC Hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]

To: irishtenor
Not even the angels (who are perfect created beings) accept worship and council against it.

AMEN!

To me, praying to saints instead of going directly to God is like calling the Hawaii Fire Department when your house in Seattle is on fire.

lol. And then getting a bill from the Hawaii Fire Department. Insult to injury.

241 posted on 04/03/2008 11:06:11 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]

To: irishtenor
Yes words mean things. So it's fair to say the words "to Godhead" were not written in the post which led to this particular knuckle of disagreement.

The actual words were:

On the contrary, referring to Mary as "Mother of God" elevates Jesus Christ.
(here.)

No mention of elevating Him to Godhead.

At no extra charge I will, no doubt needlessly, say what I think they meant after saying that they did NOT mean that Mary elevated Jesus to Godhead.

They were I think a Reader's Digest summary of the Nestorian Controversy which really pertains to the nature and, so to speak, "timing" of the union of Divine and human natures in Jesus. The title Theotokos was debated on Christological grounds, not on Marian grounds simpliciter.

Likewise in the version of the Chalcedonian Definition which I just happen to have right here, uh, somewhere, under the protein bar wrappers, move the Brigade Quartermasters catalogue, ah! Here it is ...

; ... as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, The God-Bearer; one and the same Christ, ....
The question is, what WAS that in Mary's womb, to which the intrauterine John the Baptist responded? Or, in other words, how shall we think and talk about the union of natures in Christ? If from conception it was one Person with two natures, then, well, theotokos seems to apply. We would say, with Ephesus and Chalcedon, that the notion that the Divine nature was somehow infused into Jesus or He was "adopted" would imply a lower VIEW or OPINION of Him than the notion that from the git-go He was God and man. Therefore, the implication is that acknowledging the title "theotokos" implies an "Elevated" notion of what Jesus is.

it is an unfortunate use of language that ww speak of elevating X when we mean adopting a "higher" concept of X. It is our thoughts that are elevated.

The question of intercession of saints I'd prefer to leave until later. One bloody (adjective of quality, not cussing) dispute at a time ...

And peace to you.

In related news, the Presbyterian John MacQuarrie once wrote a little essay justifying the translation of Theotokos as "mother of God". Please don't ask me to find it.

265 posted on 04/03/2008 11:16:22 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson