Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
I dont know how you survived 13 years of a Catholic education and came out of it sane. Two years, and 3 before that with a Catholic woman teaching, was like a prison camp for me. Every school after that was freedom, and they were strict. But no one was crazy.
foul disease is chicken flu
There you go again, speaking in that awful Latin!
Tsk, tsk...LOL.
Mary isn’t the mother of God. That would make her a god as well.
Since Mary was a human, she could not have birthed God.
Mea Culpa!
Translation please.
Translation please.
ROTFLMAO!
Mea Culpa = MY FAULT!
“Mary isn’t the mother of God. “
Clearly not a Christian point of view.
Tibi ignosco. (I forgive you.)
:)
The famous Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth wrote:
As Christians and theologians, we do not reject the description of Mary as the “Mother of God,” but in spite of its being overloaded by the so-called Mariology of the Roman Catholic Church, we affirm and approve of it as a legitimate expression of Christological truth. . . . The description of Mary as the “Mother of God” was and is sensible, permissible and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition.
(Church Dogmatics, I, 2, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 138)
The Protestant Reformed scholar Max Thurian observed:
Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one’s aid “reformed tradition” unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . .
In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary’s holiness and perpetual virginity. Whatever the theological position which we may hold today, in regard to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary it is right to know, perhaps to our great surprise, that these two Catholic dogmas were accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in their present form but certainly in the form that was current in their day.
(Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, New York: Herder & Herder, 1963, 77, 197)
The well-known Lutheran theologian Friedrich Heiler thought that the Marian doctrines were greatly minimized or abandoned by later Protestants because of:
. . . the spirit of the enlightenment with its lack of understanding of mystery, and especially of the mystery of the Incarnation, which in the 18th century began the work of destruction.
( “Die Gottesmutter im Glauben und Beten der Jahrhunderte,” Hochkirche 13 [1931], 200)
Another Lutheran scholar, Basilea Schlink, believes that:
. . . the majority of us have drifted away from the proper attitude towards her, which Martin Luther had indicated to us on the basis of Holy Scripture ... [partially due to the rise of Rationalism which] has lost the sense of the sacred. In Rationalism man sought to comprehend everything, and that which he could not comprehend he rejected. Because Rationalism accepted only that which could be explained rationally, Church festivals in honor of Mary and everything else reminiscent of her were done away with in the Protestant Church. All biblical relationship to the Mother Mary was lost, and we are still suffering from this heritage.
When Martin Luther bids us to praise the Mother Mary, declaring that she can never be praised enough as the noblest lady and, after Christ, the fairest gem in Christendom, I must confess that for many years I was one of those who had not done so, although Scripture says that henceforth all generations would call Mary blessed [Luke 1:48]. I had not taken my place among these generations.
(Mary, the Mother of Jesus, London: Marshall Pickering, 1986, 114-115)
And the Anglican A. Lancashire states:
A rejection of Mariology must inevitably lead to a rejection of orthodox Christology. ... Devotion to Mary, far from leading men away from Christ, draws the Church into a deeper recognition of the mystery of God’s loving activity directed towards man in Christ.
(Born of the Virgin Mary, London: The Faith Press, 1962, 142-143)
From http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/counter-reply-martin-luthers-mariology.html
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
“But Mary is not the mother of God according to you.”
Uh, not just me. Where in Scripture is she described as the mother of God Almighty?
The RCC calls her “Mother of God” — the Bible doesn’t.
And please don’t follow narses’ path by taking this to a personal level (re: college logic 101, etc. Leave the ad hominem behind, okay?
Hoss
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Mismatch of logic — a grave is not an image of someone’s parents. An image of Mary is just that—an image that is being worshipped. I’m not worshipping my parents image... There is none!!! Let’s not mix our metaphors...When I responded in kind, your poor widdle feelings got hurt and you tried, again, to pretend superiority. Now you post about me without even bothering to ping me, a basic courtesy generally on the net and always on this site. You reveal your puerile nature with nearly every post. And then you whine. Very sad waste of potential.
Scripture?
Hoss
Blindness?
Since Mary was a human, she could not have birthed God.”
________________________________________________________________
This issue has been discussed in literally thousands of posts on hundreds of threads, most of which I've seen you posting on, and now you come here with this ridiculous misunderstanding?
There was a thread a few months ago with over 10,000 posts on which you were quite active, and I recall this question was exhaustively covered.
Mary is NOT the mother of the Trinity.
Mary IS the Mother of Jesus, Who is the Son of God made man. He has two natures, Divine and human, united in one Person, so it is fitting to call Mary the Mother of God. She is the mother of the Divine Person Jesus. It is obvious that she was not His mother until He was conceived in her womb. He did not have a human nature until that moment. Nobody is arguing the absurdity that she existed eternally.
She DID give birth to God, to the Second Person of the Trinity made man. He is God as much as the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Where have you been during all those hundreds of threads???
2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
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.