| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/13/2013 3:40:25 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poster’s request |
Posted on 10/12/2013 9:34:46 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The most common objection I get to Mary as Mother of God, especially from Fundamentalists, but not limited to them, is, “The words ‘Mother of God’ are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, I will not accept it as true.”
This line of reasoning fails in dramatic fashion when carried to its logical conclusion when we consider the central mystery of the Christian Faith, the Trinity, is not found in Scripture verbatim as well. And we could go on. The Incarnation would fall by the wayside. Essential terms we use to do theology, like homoousios (Gr.—same nature, Jesus has the “same nature” as his Father), hypostatic union, the circumincessions of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, etc. All gone! The canon of Scripture, the nature of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and so much more we believe as Christians would be out the door because none of these things are made explicit in Scripture.
And this is not to mention “justification by faith alone.” Can anyone agree there is just a bit of irony in the fact that the same fellow who tells me he will not accept Mary as “Mother of God” because those words “are not found in the Bible,” will accept justification by faith alone when the only time those words are found in the Bible the words “not by” are right in front of them (cf. James 2:24)?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Projection. People see what they want to see.
Since it is clearly beyond the comprehension of some Catholics that someone would want to or choose to leave the Catholic church for any valid reason, they must make up reasons for Catholics leaving.
However, since average lay Catholics engage in those behaviors which some Catholics claim are reasons for leaving, then they cannot be the valid reasons for leaving.
I left because of doctrinal issues. The teachings of the Catholic church did not line up with Scripture.
I'm glad somebody picked that up!
And yet another article on Mary and attacking Protestant beliefs, after the last one (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3055274/posts) with 2,732 posts ended, and which covered this issue, and then RC's complain about being attacked!
As regards this issue, they should be consistent with Ratzinger's objection to the use of Co-redemptrix.
when asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306 ;http://books.google.com/books?id=M4EO-Zotb4AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Peter+Seewald+God+and+the+World&hl=en&ei=Jh_LTvSyG8HL0QH5o6En&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=continuity%20of%20terminology%20with%20the%20language%20of%20Scripture&f=false
As i said here in an extensive examination of attempts to almost deify Mary,
Thinking of souls above what is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)
It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, or even to allowing Gn. 3:15 to refer to Mary, but to the excess ascriptions, appellations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority), and which uniqueness and exaltation parallels that of Christ:
For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
In addition, although (technically) Mary is not to be worshiped in the same sense that God is worshiped, yet the distinctions between devotion to Mary and the worship of God are quite fine, and much due to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother (especially among those for whom Scripture is not supreme), then the historical practice of Catholics has been to exalt Mary above that which is written. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "By the sixteenth century, as evidenced by the spiritual struggles of the Reformers, the image of Mary had largely eclipsed the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life of believers." (Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated; NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, pp.32,33)
The practice of praying to departed saints and Mary was one that developed, helped by pagan influences, for Scripture provides no example of any believer praying to anyone in Heaven by the Lord, and reveals that doing otherwise was a practice of pagans, including to the “Queen of Heaven.” (Jer. 44:17,18,19,25). The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary) Yet, as expected, it imagines this practice came from the apostles and NT church, but which never exampled or instructed it, and instead showed that the believer has immediate access to God in the Divine Christ, (Heb. 10:19), who is the all sufficient and immediate intercessor between God (the Father) and man. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16) To the glory of God
No, you do not. (Surely you just wrote that to raise a wry smile--- or an eyebrow.)
"Mother of God" does not mean that Mary "created the Creator." It does mean she gave birth to Jesus Christ our God.
" I'm sure there are some catholics who do believe it to be a true statement. There are some on this board that believe it to be a true statement."
No sure what "statement" you mean. Do you mean there are FReepers who say A "mother of god does not mean mother of god ?"
Or do you mean there are FReepers who say B "Mother of God" does not mean that Mary 'created the Creator'."
If you can cite me any FReepers who accept A or reject B, give me a link to their erroneous statement and I will fraternally (or sororially) correct them.
Many FReeper non-Catholics think they are refuting Catholic doctrines, when they are only refuting things that are NOT Catholic doctrines: i.e., something they've misunderstood. The devil is the father of confusion: therefore they should be sure they have an accurate understanding of Catholic doctrine before they go flashmobbing into a Catholic thread, thus spreading confusion which is very pleasing to the devil..
But I would stand by the conviction that a woman who was blessed to have carried the Savior in the intimacy of her body for 9 months, given birth to Him, nursed Him, cuddled Him, taught Him to walk and to talk, fed Him, prayed with Him, lived with Him for 30 years, grieved for Him in his final, sorrowful moments of stripping, humiliation and death, held His crucified body in her arms, and knew His triumph when He was raised from the dead, was blessed above anyone, man or woman, who ever lived.
Unless you think these were negligable blessings? "Huh --- that was nothing." (Sigh.)
I don't think we should succumb to spiritual envy, like a bunch of spiritual democrats who resent others' exceptional and unequal gifts, and want to level them. Instead of resentment, we should rejoice that others are exceptionally gifted,and ask Our Lord to give us the greatest gift of all, which is Love.
A cartoon worthy of Dick Dawkins!
FOTFLOL!!!!!
What the heck is THAT a picture of?
Thus the term *mother of Jesus* conveys that thought far more precisely, which seems very likely that that is the reason the Holy Spirit used it instead of the term *mother of God* which could too easily lead into incorrect doctrine and theology and worship of someone besides God Himself.
How more intimate is that than having Him dwell in your heart through faith? Interior vs exterior?
Likewise, as Cynical Bear points out, Jael was called blessed "above all women," which entails Jael being in a higher position of blessing, a position of eminence, and some in a lower.
we should rejoice that others are exceptionally gifted
Blessed has nothing to do with being gifted...Especially in the case of Mary...
Luk_1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. G3106
G3106
μακαρίζω
makarizō
mak-ar-id'-zo
From G3107; to beatify, that is, pronounce (or esteem) fortunate: - call blessed, count happy.
As we can see, Mary was very happy because she was fortunate to be chosen by God...And she was esteemed by her peers for that action...
Has nothing to do with gifted, or eminence...
And if you find a lucky leg or arm, call BR-549 to receive your special prize...
But IN CHRIST, there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, salve or free. We are all one in Christ.
We are all blessed in the Beloved with the grace that God has LAVISHED on us. (Ephesians 1)
As I explained elsewhere on this thread, this history is important. The crisis at the time of the First Council of Ephesus was that there who denied the Divinity of Christ: the fact that He is a Divine Person, from which it follows that what is predicated of Christ, is predicated of God.
Everyone, even those confused by heresy, conceded that she Mary was the mother of Jesus. That was not in question. The question in dispute, however, was whether Jesus is divine, and was divine even from the moment of His conception --- and of course before His conception, for all ages of ages.
Some of those who were in error about this, said that He was a good man who, after a life of virtue, kinda "graduated" and was made God in the end.
The title "Mother of God" was not adopted in order to add a new layer of honor onto Mary, or to invent some new status, but as a way to assert the eternal and continuous Divinity of Christ. So, if Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the Mother of God.
You can't quite "get" "Mother of God" unless you know precisely what question it was answering.
Therefore, the title “Mother of God” is less Mariological than it is Christological.
What we keep seeing asked for and argued against, is some isolated scriptural passage supporting the principle of "scripture alone", when the foundation of the principle is found spread widely throughout the texts.
Isolating passages to see if they "prove" the principle, is the favorite ploy. It's like wolves separating out, then attacking and devouring sheep.
I can hear the wolves burping, from my backyard.
Luke 1:46-55 gives a beautiful picture of this. How highly graced she was --- she who was filled with grace --- and how humble.
Those things are synonymous. To have received grace, is to have received His favor, His gifts, His blessings. God considered the “lowliness” of His handmaid: and He exalts the humble and humbles the exalted.
I am so pleased that He exalts the humble. I am so pleased that lifted up this dear girl, Mary.
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.