Posted on 04/08/2008 3:40:51 PM PDT by annalex
I enumerated the elements that point to the former Catholic being badly informed: the ideas that the Church does not teach or know the scripture, that the sacraments are rituals, that obedience to rules saves, that personal relationship with Jesus cannot exist in a liturgical hierarchical church -- all come from ignorance of Catholicism.
Do these differences "mean little to God"? The scripture tells us that they are of great concern to God: St. Paul was furious that there were divisions in Corinth; Christ prayed fervently that we be one as His Father and He are one. Surely we can cooperate, for example, in pro-life politics, and very much in Protestantism remains Catholic and is therefore authentic Christianity, even though it is rarely acknowledged. However, the religious belief dictates culture and culture drives politics; it is hard for me to observe the centrifugal trajectory of Protestant Christianity in the past few centuries and not to expect even weaker bonds between us in the future.
The division Paul spoke of was not about things like what title to call Mary by. The divisions Paul spoke against was that who to follow. Some were saying Paul, others were saying Appolo, others were saying Christ. That is what Paul was upset by. People are saved by belief in Christ Jesus, not by any church or its numerous doctrines.
What to call Mary by is indeed unimportant, unless, like the objectin to the “Mother of God”, it betrays a christological disagreement. Our marian devotions differ, for example, in the West and in the East. I was always puzzled by the vehemence with which Roman Catholic expressions of piety are attacked by the Protestants.
The true problem is indeed whom to follow: the followers of Luther, and, especially, Calvin simply don’t have the Catohlic belief system intact, starting with its core, the Eucharist. We don’t have visible communion because we don’t have the sacramental union.
Well, some, anyway.
Because many Protestants view your reverence towards Mary as going beyond piety to deity.
Well, talking past each other on that is surely a sign of schism that should matter a great deal to God.
Mary IS the mother of God. One cannot separate Christ’s humanity from his deity. This, in fact, is what raised the issue of Mary’s role at the Council of Chalcedon.
People came to the orthodox conclusions about Mary because of what was known by the orthodox to be true about Christ, but was denied by the Arians and others.
Marian doctrines always have Christological issues at their core; they’re not promulgated merely to magnify Mary further.
You don't have to to make the argument.
I never read a convincing Protestant conversion story. The template is always— The Catholic Church does not teach from scriptureThe template, many times, is ...
— I was told that rituals and rules save me
— Now I have a personal relationship with Jesus and read the Bible.... as a Catholic, I felt like I was just going through the motionsPsalm 63:1 O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;
As a Protestant, ... I have found a far richer, and more intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.
Whereas I used to relate through Mary, and saints, and priests, etc., ... now I relate directly with Jesus, my Saviour, Himself, ... as in the manner of David the king.
Abraham beat Mary by about 2000 years. So did Sarah his wife. Moses by about 1500 years. David beat her by 1000 years. What about Samuel? Or his mother. There's also Elijah. And Elisha. How about Rahab, the prostitute ?
All people reknown for their faith, and before Mary.
And also, as long as Mary isn't in addition to Christ for salvation.
You can choose to refer to people who preceded Christ as being counted among His Saints if you like, but most being counting after His incarnation.
And rightfully referring to Mary as His first Saint does not diminish anyone’s faith.
I’d score Noah as the first person in the Bible to have demonstrated faith in God, although Enoch has a claim implied.
The Blessed Virgin Mary, though, has to be scored as the first person to have faith in Christ, though, with St. John the Baptist in utero as the historically debated runner-up.
Aren't you doing the same thing?
Read the Bible, or large sections of it, as a whole. Two of the Gospels include extensive geneologies of Jesus' heritage - tracing his origin back as a product (son) of Israel. Why is B so hard to grasp, then?
Classical Hebrew has a documented vocabulary of about 25,000 words. This is approximately 1/40th the size of the current English vocabulary. The case of classical Greek is similar.
Even discounting the explosion of technological terms in the past couple centuries, words in classical languages almost always had a wider and less precise range of meanings than we expect from modern English usage.
To squint through 21st century spectacles at a seventeenth century translation is a conspicuously error-prone method of determining the meaning of difficult parts of God’s word.
P-J, you said: Mary IS the mother of God.
Show me chapter and verse where Mary is refered to, word for word, as “the mother of God”.
What Mary was mother to died. Diety doesn’t die, not even for a second. God was IN Christ. God is a Spirit. God the Father was in Christ doing the miracles.
P-J, you also say: One cannot separate Christ’s humanity from his deity.
AR gives you no arguement, but I will.
Christ DID separate his humanity from his diety.
That was the power in the Christ that enabled him to lay down his life, and take it back up again.
Consider the testamony of Peter to Cornelius in Acts 10:34-43: “..How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power....for God was with him....Him God raised up the third day....it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead”. That’s how Jesus Christ can say: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”.
Mary was given the great honor of giving birth to the human that God would give his Spirit to without measure. John 3:34
Yet, Mary did not give Jesus Christ any power whatsoever; and therefore is not “the mother of God”.
>> Aren’t you doing the same thing? <<
How so? I’m exactly acknowledging that the lady in Revelations does represent the covenant Israel. All I’m saying is that it is highly meaningful that the blessed virgin Mary re-presents the covenant Israel. She is the re-presentation, the embodiment, the fulfillment of Israel.
>> Read the Bible, or large sections of it, as a whole. Two of the Gospels include extensive geneologies of Jesus’ heritage - tracing his origin back as a product (son) of Israel. Why is B so hard to grasp, then? <<
Read the geneaology of Matthew. It’s told in a way which would be quite shocking to an ancient who read it for the first time:
“And Jacob begat Joseph, husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”
Notice the wording casts Joseph (and his entire lineage) as notable because of his relationship to Mary, just as it casts Mary as notable because of her relationship to Christ. What a shocking upheaval! The entire history of the Jews, leading to Joseph, whose significance is only that he is the husband of Mary.
Luke, on the other hand, uses his geneaology to emphasize that Jesus was the son of God.
>> What Mary was mother to died. <<
Take care what you state, that you do not commit blasphemy! Christ still lives! He was resurrected, body and soul, from the dead! What part of Christ do you deny? Seriously, you cannot call yourself a Christian and say that any part of Christ died! There is no corpse of Christ; there is no dead “historical Jesus.” He was not given a new flesh; his risen flesh still bore the wounds where the stakes were driven through his hands and feet, and still bore the hole where the spear pierced his side. So how can Mary be mother to anything which died?
This is the very reason why Orthodox, Catholic are so mystified by Mary, and why the ancients doctrinally established the title of “Mother of God” (Theotokos): because to deny that God had a mother is to deny that God became Man.
**Take care what you state, that you do not commit blasphemy! Christ still lives!**
Hello?? FRiend, I quoted the words of Jesus from Matt. 28:18; (after the resurrection...from...the...dead) “All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth.” I absolutely affirm he has risen from the dead.
So I ask you, who gave him all power? Certainly not Mary.
I referred to John 3:34. Here’s the next verse: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath GIVEN ALL things into his Hand
Who raised the Christ from the dead? Certainly not Mary.
The Spirit of God left the Christ while on the cross, or he would...never...have...died. As simply as the bread and fishes was multiplied by God, so would an endless supply of oxygen charged blood sustained his body while on the cross.
But, as the passover lamb, he had to die. That’s the object Mary was blessed to help bring forth; the man Christ Jesus, not the God that chose to dwell in him without measure.
**This is the very reason why Orthodox, Catholic are so mystified by Mary**
Your problem, not mine.
**the ancients doctrinally established the title of “Mother of God”**
And that is probably where your problem started. One could make a case that the one that transforms himself into an angel of light (Satan) has also transformed into an ‘ancient’ in time past.
I realize that man-made tradition dies hard, for the pride that sustains it has been passed on for generations.
Let God be true, and every man a liar.
Yes, that is a common variation as well. In other words, the poor man did not get Catholicism, — he was going through motions. Those indeed should educate themselves or leave.
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.