Nothing new under the sun...
Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Being a native speaker does not mean (and he did not say) that the English was the most literal translation, but "an acceptable translation." Perhaps that is acceptable to a Catholic who prefers that over a more literal translation, while in any case Chalcedonian Definition adds the qualifier, "according to the Manhood" (cf. Rm. 9:5-as concerning the flesh"), which characteristic lack of in the use of MOG continues to be an issue in the protest against its use.
And as more weighty authors state,
“The term Theotokos — Θεοτοκος — does not mean the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation. In English one must translate Theotokos as “Bearer of God.” The correct Latin would be deipara or dei genetrix, not Mater Dei. (“The Significance of the Term Theotokos” from The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Fr. Georges Florovsky) June, 1987).
The most literal and correct translation of Theotokos [though lacking an exact English equivalent] is “Birth-giver to God” or “God bearer”. - http://www.irishorthodoxchristianchurch.com/response-on-the-use-of-%E2%80%9Ctheotokos%E2%80%9D/
The title Theotokos (in Greek, Θεοτοκος) is a Greek word that means "God-bearer" or "Birth-giver to God." "The most literally correct one is Birth-giver to God, though God-bearer comes close."
"The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos." "The most popular translation, Mother of God, is accurate to a point, but the difficulty with that one is that Mother of God is the literal translation of another Greek phrase which is found on nearly all icons of the Theotokos: Μητηρ Θεου (Meter Theou)..," - http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
The problem is not that of using theological terms or English words that were translated from Greek words which have no exact equivalents, but of the most accurate ones, and avoiding using words which are the result of theologically imposed meanings (as "priest" [from old English "preost"] for "presbyteros ") when a more accurate word can be used.
Those who do want to clarify the distinction (which few do) btwn the normal ontological meaning of "Mother of" and that of Mary simply being the holy vessel by which God, who created her, took upon the body God had prepared, must engage in explanations which would be less warranted if they simply used "bearer of God."
Moreover, consistent with the reasoning used to justify the uncritical use of "Mother of God," (Jesus was God and Mary was His mother=MOG) Jews could be called God-killers since lost Jews (via the Romans) killed Jesus, and Jesus was God.
While technically it may be allowed as qualified as describing eternal God as an incarnated man, it is just as misleading to infer Divinity itself can be killed as it is to infer Divinity itself can be born, and thus it should be avoided as something that creates more problems than it is worth.
Yet MOG is obviously preferred to the more ancient "bearer of God," and is often used as part of an uncensored level and litany of ascriptions and adulation never given to any created being in Scripture, even reaching those which are unique to God.
Not again! Where do you see Catholic Bashing in response to the first post? You mean the objections cited in the article were "Bashing?" Why is not the article "bashing" Prots by attacking their objections?
Please provide a reasonable definition of "bashing" that applies to both sides so that all may avoid the censure of wannebe RMs who careless use it for the opposition.
The lack of valid early evidence for the Assumption does not matter: it is what Rome "remembers" that makes it binding doctrine.
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
>But,
subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via invisible, amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .
“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Nothing new under the sun...
All references (among Protestants) change to Mary Birth Giver of God.
Nope; we FOLLOW it:
Proverbs 15:22
Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellers they are established.
It appears that a LOT of Catholics did NOT get the memo!
Oh?
WHY should it?
Can't you make up your OWN chapters if you WANT to??
bold emphasis mine
Go for it!!
Oh; let ‘im whine.
He’ll soon run out of tears...
Which 'references'??
BUMP
The term Τοκος (Τοκου)which you will see at the end of the Greek translation of the Arabic Paschal chant linked below, is generally translated as "Whom you bore", meaning to Whom you gave birth. The Arabic in the linked chant is almost word for word identical to he Greek in meaning. It is sobering to realize what is happening now to the Christians who have chanted this hymn (along with all other Orthodox Christians) during the Paschal Season since the 4th century. Please all of you, pray for them tomorrow and always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJyubi8FJk
Was Martin Luther’s revision of the Bible a return to the “true Bible” of the early Church?
Full Question
A non-Catholic co-worker claims there were early Christian councils that upheld the 66 books of the Old Testament, but the Catholic Church suppressed them, and it was Martin Luther who finally stood up to the Church and reclaimed the true Bible for Christians. Is there any truth to his statement?
Answer
No. There were no early councils that endorsed the 66 books Protestants honor (check the facts in your local library). The current canon of Scripture was affirmed at the Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus, which included all and only the seventy-three books Catholics honor today. This canon was repeated at Hippo and at Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397, respectively) and has been repeated ever since.
It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.
And it’s catholics who continue to insist the apocrphya is canon even though it is rejected by the Hebrew canon which runs from Genesis to Chronicles as attested to by Christ in Mtthew 23:35.
Why are you dragging Luther into it?
What’s he got to do with the topic of the thread?
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.