Posted on 09/24/2008 4:03:51 PM PDT by NYer
I’m no fan of the A. of C., but these Protestant critics should also realize that belief in the various Marian apparitions, at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, etc., even if declared “worthy of belief” by the Church, are completely optional. The public revelation of Jesus Christ was final and ended with the death of St. John the Evangelist. Private revelations may be believed if they help our faith and are not inconsistent with the deposit of faith, but no Catholic has to believe them.
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Since Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, what is the problem with this verse referring to "the man Christ Jesus?"
I have heard my (Orthodox) priest quote this verse in the context of emphasizing Jesus Christ's full humanity, his love for us and that our humanity is with God the Father due to the incarnation.
Am I missing something?
You aren’t the first to say my experience was not the norm. I truly hope that is the case, because a lot of bad things happened there. Unfortunately, what happened in my parish was typical of the whole diocese. The cardinal turned a blind eye to problems. I don’t know what’s happening there currently.
We did not study scripture much in catechism. We talked about topics related to scripture, but with unbiblical beliefs attached. And yes, there was scripture in the homilies, but again expounded upon based on the doctrines and traditions of man.
One thing that’s always struck me about this rejection on the part of some for the title “Mother of God” is just as you said, “Mary can’t be the mother of His divine nature, only his human nature”.
Despite the fact that this really IS the definition of Nestorianism, it really doesn’t fully appreciate what a “mother” is, for anyone.
Your mother, my mother, everyone’s mother “bore” us in her womb, that doesn’t mean she “created” our soul. She had a hand in creating our humanity, but not our soul. But she’s still the mother of both, because that’s what mothers do, they “bear” the child in them, that is, carry it to term to deliver it to the world.
So the term “God bearer” (theotokos) fits perfectly well with “Mother of God”, just as our mothers “bore” us in their womb, being the “mother of our soul”.
“.That makes Mary the Mother of God. Do Protestants deny this? ...”
None that I know!!
I feel I should point out in the interests of fairness that what ViLaLuz said regarding “reading the Bible on your own” is actually quite common among “older” Catholics. My grandmother, for example recently told me how she was told to not read the Bible on her own, as it might lead her to error. One can go to many “older” Catholics (people over say 60, who were/are cradle Catholics) and ask them if they were told this, I’d be willing to wager they were.
What one must realize is that before Vatican II this was the norm, really, as even to associate with Protestants was considered “sinful”. Many, including myself, like to criticize the reforms made in Vatican II (and with good reason, sometimes, I believe, don’t get me wrong, it was taken too far to the “left” so to speak), but there were some solidly good things done in that Council, namely the re-emphasis of Scripture as important in daily life. “Ignorance of the Scriptures is Ignorance of Christ.”, as the venerable St. Jerome is quoted as saying in our most recent Catechism.
All of this said, anyone reading this post right now must realize it was TECHNICALLY, never really official Church teaching to discourage people from reading the Bible on their own, but in practice, before Vatican II, it was very common to do so. So we should focus on what is being taught today, and not dwell on the mistakes of many men (not the Church, but men IN the Church) in the past.
Now, today Catholics in every parish are encouraged to read Scripture, reflect on it, and ask their local priest for instruction should questions arise. (which really isn’t THAT much different than the “Catholicism of our grandparents” if one really thinks about it)
I think some of what was going on is also common to every denomination (and I bet it's common with non-Christian beliefs as well). When you're teaching the little kids (or even the medium-sized kids), you tend to simplify difficult questions and short-cut a lot of stuff. First-graders are not going to care about (or be able to digest) explanations of the Hypostatic Union or for that matter Biblical Inerrancy or Predestination.
If somebody falls away in high school or college (hey - I did!) but returns to another church (in whichever direction), and all they remember is the simplified-for-kids version of the Church's teachings that they learned in Sunday School or CCD, then they are comparing apples and oranges.
LOL! So obvious once it's pointed out -- I can't believe I didn't think of it!
Right/s. Perhpas you didn't stick around long enough to hear the "It is Truly Meet" hymn right after the consecration of the Gifts:
Wrong question. Ask yourself "Was the Word Incarnate before the Annunciation?" No. Was Jesus the same Second Person of the Godhead? Yes, one and the same.
So, the product put forth was still God, Incarnate God, the Second Person of the Godhead, who took on the human form and nature and soul, and not some other person attached to the Word, but God Incarnate, a perfect God and a perfect man.
Богородица (Bogoroditsa), Бог (God) o (ligature similar to English dash "-") родица (birther), as in God-birther. Does it get any more awkward that this?
I would suggest that the larger problem is not translating from Ancient Greek to Modern English, but translating from the philosophical methods of the 4th century to post-modern methods of today.
You owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church which gave you that Bible.
Let's begin with your first statement: I was taught as a Catholic... that Mary is Christ’s co-redemptrix, and that she is actually the woman who would crush the serpent’s head and save the world
Jesus is the one Mediator of our salvation, our only Saviour. But He is not our only intercessor, as the following passage clearly indicates.
"I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings, for all those in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and holiness. This is good and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus."
1Timothy 2:1-5
From this passage we can see three important things:
1. Paul is asking fellow Christians to pray and intercede with God for those in authority and for other third parties.
2. These prayers and intercessions are being made on behalf of other people, and to God. This is a mediation of prayer. Christians are being asked to mediate between all people, Christian and non-Christian, and God.
3. Since this is all one passage, it is absolutely clear that when Paul refers to there being only one mediator between God and men, he is not referring to the mediation of prayer. Jesus's unique mediation is a different mediation - the mediation of our salvation.
Jesus is the one Mediator of our salvation, our only Saviour. But He is not our only intercessor, as the whole passage above clearly indicates.
And we were also taught that Mary was sinless,
You are referring to the Immaculate Conception which states that the Virgin Mary was preserved free of Original Sin from the moment of her conception, and so was made sinless.
It has to do with the Holiness of God. God cannot tolerate Sin. Mary as the God-bearer in Jesus had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches that God's presence demands and imparts holiness. (Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14; 1 Cor 3:17; 1 Jn 3:5-6; Rev 21:27). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year, under threat of death if God's instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her physical and spiritual relationship with God, necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness.
In other words, since Jesus took flesh in and from Mary's body, and also obtained His Human Nature from Her, she had to be perfectly sinless. The only question that then arises is when and how Mary was made sinless. Protestants are quite willing to admit that we are cleansed of our sins at baptism. Yet Mary could not have been baptised at the time of the Annunciation, or even Jesus's birth. For this reason her sinlessness had to come in a special and unique manner. To be pure and free from all sin as God required, she had not only to be free of sin at one point in time, (as one is immediately after baptism,) but to remain sinless throughout her life.
Luke 1.46: And Mary said "My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour,"
We have seen that Mary needed to be perfectly sinless in order to bear Jesus. Did she attain that sinlessness through her own human efforts? No. She was redeemed by her son - as was all the rest of humanity. She needed God's Grace. And in order to be, and remain, sinless she needed that grace before her own birth.
We can see that in Luke 1.46 Mary speaks of God as her Saviour, but she speaks in the present tense. She does not say "God, who will be my Saviour." She has already been redeemed. If we look at one of the Old Testament passages that Mary bases her words upon, we see this more clearly.
Isaiah 51.10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
As virtually every educated 1st Century Jew would have recognised, in echoing this passage, Mary clearly considered that God had already clothed her with the garments of salvation, and covered her with the robe of righteousness. Her sin had already been wiped away. This is supported by the angel's greeting to Mary:
Luke 1.28: The angel went to her and said, "Hail, you who are full of grace (Literally: you who have been and remain filled with Grace). The Lord is with you."
The problem is in using his humanity as a convenient tool for different situations, emphasizing his humanity in one instance and his divinity in another. Yet you will never read that any of the Apostles ever prayed to the risen Christ. They offer divine worship only to God (the Father), a significant detail everyone seems to miss or ignore or rationalize. Even Christ himself doesn't teach to pray to him but to the Father (the Lord's Prayer)!
But, accoridng to Orthodox theology, Jesus was never only man or only God, his humanity was always subordained in perfect obedience to his divinity and therefore free of sin, so at no time does Jesus' humanity take the center stage, his human will is never free to sin, but always in harmony with his divine will.
Therefore using his humanity when it's convenient to explain something strange and contradictory is invalid, unles sit is meant to covey that Jesus di suffer real pain and death in it. But his humanity never trumpted his divnity.
Nor was there any instance when Jesus in his divinity was not with the Father or the Spirit. Christ suffered and died in his human nature, but he never suffered and died in his divine nature.
That's why the Creed says "and he suffered and was buried" it doesn't say "he suffered and died." It doesn't say he came back to life, but that he "rose" on the third day accoridng to the scriptures (the Church changed 1 Cor 15:4 to read "rose" and not "was raised")
Orthodox theology is wonderful, but it doesn't reflect what's in the New Testament. +Paul and Synoptic Gospels of +Matthew, +Mark and +Luke keep subordaining Christ to the Father, in particular statements like "the Father is greater than I," or "God (the Father) raised him," or "the head of Christ is God (the Father)," etc.
In particular, +Paul also states that when the fullness of time came God (the Father) sent forth his son born of a woman [sic] under the law.
Now, "son of God" was a title in Judaism and it simply meant the messiah (christos in Greek), the anointed one. It didn't mean divine. Likewise, +Paul ignored (never mentions) Incarnation or the Virgin Birth, two mind boggling miracles of miracles and pillars of Christian faith.
+Paul taught what he calls "his gospel," and was known for changing word meanings as he pleased. For example, he made "christos," which is a title, into a proper name, and he used the word "anathema" (other Gospels never use it), as a curse (cf 1 Cor 16:22), whereas its original meaning was "setting aside," an offering to God.
His idea of Christ is something between man and God, perhaps an "ideal man" who was given divine powers, but definitely not God himself.
The one place where he does say that the fullness of Godhead was in him bodily is in Colossians, one of the two of the Epistles the scholars are seriously divided regarding its authoriship.
Since we don't have originals, but copies of copies hundreds of years after the originals were written, we have no way of telling what was added and what was removed.
Certainly, Colossians 2:9 is out of character with his other statements concerning Christ. It sticks out like a sore thumb, a la Comma Johanneum, which we know is a forgery.
There was a lot of "choreography" involved in creating a new religion, and +Paul was the chief arhcitect of that. He had to. Chgristianity was about to become extinct in Irsael and +Paul bore the heavy burden of selling a Jewish setc to pagan Greeks. In doing so, as he says, he was all thing to all people, as long as they converted.
For underestandable reasons, the Church presents and idealized picture of everything and reads only select passages from the Bible, concentrating not so much on the veracity of the story as much as on the moral message in it.
The Bible must be read in the mind-set of the 4th century when it was canonized and preserved in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom 1,600 years ago.
Unfortunately, most Protestants read the BIble with the 21st century mindset and, more likely than not, a faulty translation.
“I would suggest that the larger problem is not translating from Ancient Greek to Modern English, but translating from the philosophical methods of the 4th century to post-modern methods of today.”
I agree with Kosta, which will not surprise you. I will add that philosophical methods have little or nothing to do with the problem. The problem is that the West, by in large, has positively rejected the phronema of the early Church. Nevertheless, approaching Christianity with the “...post-modern methods of today.” is both unnecessary and almost guaranteed to result in heresy. And I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the translation issues are not the “larger problem.” It is, together with a distorted mindset, THE Problem facing Western Christianity, but this is nothing new.
If anything, the philosophical method is part of western scholasticism steeped in Aristotelian philosophy which the East resoundly rejected (+Gregory Palams) in favor of monasticism.
It is truly meet to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.
Those phrases are included in the second verse of Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones" found in the ELCA Lutheran and Episcopal hymnals:
O higher than the Cherubim,
More glorious than the Seraphim,
Lead their praises, Alleluia!
Thou bearer of th'eternal Word
Most gracious, magnify the Lord,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!
The words are clearly addressed to the blessed Theotokos seeking her intercession in leading the praises sung by the angels.
“It is truly meet to bless you, Theotokos, ever blessed, most pure, and mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, without corruption you gave birth to God the Word. We magnify you, the true Theotokos.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR3CX5pNgzQ
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.