The Semi-Permeable Membranes of the Various Protestantisms [Ecumenical]

ic ^ | July 21, 2009 | Mark Shea

[Zionist Conspirator]

Holy Scripture is not a text book. It matters not whether the world was made in 6 days (as measured in our time) or 6 million. Are the six days of creation really literal twenty-four-hour periods or a symbol of divine work, however long it took? Did Jesus really turn bread and wine into his body and blood, or is it just a figure? Did a great red dragon really sweep a third of the stars out of heaven with his tail, or does that symbolize something else? Are these symbols or miracles? We must pay attention to the faith and to try to learn how language was used at the time, in the tongues and cultures of the Bible, and then say to ourselves, "What did the author most likely intend when he said this?"

That is the point of this article.

I am well aware of your detestably low view of the Word of G-d (apparently there's no difference between Maronites and Latins in that regard). Though I give you props for consistency in classifying transubstantiation along with all the other alleged fables that never really happened. Most Catholics hypocritically insist on that one while rejecting everything else.

But you are missing the point. The alleged purpose of the article is to defend Sacred Tradition (by pointing out the inconsistency of Protestants). I defended genuine Sacred Tradition by pointing out that that Tradition is that Cain married his twin sister (and that this was a cause of friction between Cain and Abel). Your post quoted above says not a word about Tradition. It is nothing but the most modernistic, anti-Traditional secular "modern scholarship." Is this what Catholics now mean by Tradition?

Where do your church fathers say "we must be aware of the imagery of ancient cultures" in their Biblical commentaries? They don't. You got that from the historical criticism created by liberal Lutherans in the nineteenth century. That, apparently, is your "tradition."

I informed you of the immemorial Oral Tradition about Cain and Abel. You reject it and fall back on modern scholarship. Who is the "protestant" here?

I miss wideawake, who apparently is no longer with us.

[bdeaner]

I find disagreement with its random grabbing of objectionable points from different denominations, then implicitly lumping them all together to smear the totality of “Protestantism”. Much of what is criticized is NOT the norm across the umbrella philosophy, so it is disingenuous to portray isolated flaws as such.

I think the point of the article is that once you reject the infallibility of the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you hit a slippery slope that opens the Bible to multiple interpretations and actually, taken to its logical conclusion, undermines the credibility of the Bible's authority -- which was granted through canonization by the early Church.

[Melian]

God bless you, JM!

[editor-surveyor]

This is one of the most thick-headed and ignorant screeds that I can ever recall reading here.

For example, everything that one could possibly want to know about marriage has been in the Hebrew scriptures for three and a half millenia; how did the author miss it? Or is he simply looking for a spat on a dull day?

[editor-surveyor]

"Why is "He" referred to as a "he" in the Greek throughout the NT then? Why can "He" be grieved, quenched, lied to, etc.? Why does I John 5:7 - which IS a genuine part of Scripture, btw - say that these three are one, which certainly suggests ontological unity?"

Why do you insist on asking such tough questions ;o)

[Melian]

“For me, I can’t become a Catholic, nor even consider it, as long as that ‘Mary, the Mother of God’ nonsense exists.”

May I make a suggestion? The crux of Catholicism is the Eucharist. If you were to study early translations of the Gospels, the historical record of the early Church, and other historical writings, and form an educated opinion of the Holy Eucharist, you might find that concerns about Mary’s status are put in perspective.

If Catholics are right about the Eucharist, then we’re right about everything. Find out what we really believe about the Eucharist and the rationale for those beliefs, before you decide.

[editor-surveyor]

"I already have Christ. Is He not sufficient?"

If not we are all doomed!

1Ti 2:5 "For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

Those that seek another will not join us at the wedding feast.

[guitarplayer1953]

And why did the God head in the beginning say let us create man in our image? And through out the bible it is required a wittiness of two or more to confirm a fact if God requires it of us then it is a requirement of Himselves.

[Cronos]

You are correct. my beliefs are orthodox. I can't make that last leap of logic to her being the mother of God, though.

There is no leap of logic --
1. you agree that she was the mother of Jesus Christ, correct?

2. You do agree that Jesus Christ is God, wholly God and wholly Man -- two natures complete and intertwined in the one person. Right?

Ergo, she was the mother of God - Jesus Christ, not the mother of God the Father, the other part of the Godhead.

Note -- that does NOT mean that she was the creator of God, that does NOT mean that she was anything but inferior to God, that does NOT mean that she was not a creature (created by God).

Finally, "But I don't need a meadiatrix between me and God, I already have Christ. Is He not sufficient? " --> The Church doesn't say that you have to pray to Mary -- we don't pray to her. We just respect her for his position as the vessel for Christ to come into the world. Christ IS sufficient, we just respect Mary as a mother figure. Remember -- The Church does not say go out and pray to Mary, don't pray to Christ. We ask Mary to pray FOR us...and we also pray to Christ --> I don't mind other people praying for me, so why not have Mary doing that too?

[Cronos]

so, you would call her Christokos? Mother of Christ?

[Cronos]

Christ's having both a fully human and fully divine nature in the question of Mary's relationship to Him, which issue is a core component of this area of disagreement.

True -- He had both a fully human and a fully divine nature -- but they were completely intertwined in the SAME person, no separation. You cannot say that Mary gave birth to Jesus the human part and not the divine part or you state that there was some kind of separation between the two natures.

This was already debated centuries ago by the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites etc.

[chesley]

So Jesus was His Own Granpa?? I don’t like to be facetitious, but basically this is what it seems like to me.

I will agree that Mary is the Mother of the human aspect of Jesus, not of the God aspect. I don’t have the proper theological vocabulary at hand.

As for prayer, I ask living friends and family to pray for me, nor do I pray (much) for those who are dead. Their eternal fate is already sealed.

Asking Mary and the saints to do so looks like worship, feels like worship, and I think I hear a quack.

Besides, regardless of official Church doctrine, I lived in a 3rd world country. Many Catholics there DO pray to, and DO worship, Mary.

Further, nowhere is the NT is this practice mentioned or implied.

But, I could be wrong. I don’t think so; I doubt you can convince me, but one day we’ll know for sure. As brothers is Christ, we can thrash it out there.

[chesley]

Now I may be wrong, but aren’t the Sacraments part of the path to salvation? Isn’t that why excommunication is a punishment? Not just to separate the offender from the Church, but from heaven? Because he can’t partake of the Sacraments?

No man has that power, not even the Pope.

[maryz]

In many early manuscripts (and commentators), the section “in heaven: the Father, the Word and Holy Spirit; an these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth” does not appear.

[maryz]

She was, however the mother of the man, Jesus.

IOW, you don't accept the hypostatic union? Just to clarify . . .

[Arkansas Toothpick]

Actually, though the author intended otherwise, this article made me realize that I had better have sound grounding for my beliefs. Therefore, I will endeavor to make sure that my Faith is based on the Word of the Living God and not on the shifting sand of what I *think* is correct or what I feel is socially acceptable. New traditions will arise, and they already have in some groups, that teach homosexuality is fully acceptable. Therefore, if I hold fast to the teachings of Christ and those who have written according to the inspiration of the Spirit, then I will avoid such error.

The Roman Catholic argument about tradition is a reasonable one. I understand their perspective. However, at the end of the day, I believe two things: 1) God has given us Scripture that can be read AND understood by the laity as long as we do not seek to inject our own whims into AND if we are filled by the Spirit. In other words, unbelievers cannot properly interpret Scripture. 2) NO man is infallible. Therefore, I must have an unassailable source for my Faith’s foundation, and that source is the God-breathed words of Scripture. I truly respect my brethren in the Roman Catholic tradition, and I believe MANY are followers of Christ and that they seek Him with zeal and passion. I am heartened by the fact that in Heaven, no lines of division will exist among the Elect who worship the King forever and ever.

[maryz]

The author is a moron and has never read the scriptures.

The author is a convert from non-denominational Evangelicalism.

[maryz]

I defended genuine Sacred Tradition by pointing out that that Tradition is that Cain married his twin sister (and that this was a cause of friction between Cain and Abel).

Is that universally held? In my Midrash studies (which I admit I know a lot more of than Talmud, though -- from what I've read -- Talmud works the same way), there are normally several comments on each verse, which may agree or disagree (sometimes wildly), and all are allowed to stand and are held in respect.

[chesley]

Well, since you asked, I consider the whole concept of God having a mother somewhat blasphemous.

I do accept that Jesus was wholly Man and wholly God. But God existed before Mary, including God the Son.

You know, I accept the doctrine of the Trinity, although I cannot explain it. One God, Three Persons. Doesn’t make sense, but I accept it. However, I find evidence of it in Scripture.

The Mother of God thing neither makes sense to me, nor do I find any evidence to support it in the Scripture.

[maryz]

Spoken like a good Nestorian! ;-)