Ping!

What a bunch of rubbish concerning the marriage bit.

Great article!

The thing is, Scripture is NOT UNCLEAR about what marriage is. Check out Matthew 19

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4”Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

7”Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Thanks for the post. I found it to be well written and insightful. I am Protestant, there are some aspects of Catholicism that I theologically disagree with. ( I mean no offense by this - I am just trying to speak truthfully.) However, this article forces me to examine myself and my faith - and that is a good thing. Thanks for an excellent post.-—JM

That’s why orthodox Lutherans do not claim the mantle of “protestant” but firmly assert that they are part of the Church, catholic.

Nowhere does Scripture spell out that the Holy Spirit is a person, much less the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

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?

Is there a purpose for such a scatter-shot assault on a sister denomination?
Randomly picking-and-choosing weak points in assorted philosophies, then lumping those cumulative flaws as representative of the overarching term, is disingenuous rhetoric bent on wholesale destruction, not clarification and unity unto a greater purpose.

And further, it is not right to lump in liberal “Protestants”, along with the more conservative. AFter all, the Catholic Church also has its social gospel advocates, its gay advocates, etc. The Church rejects their ideas? So do conservative Protestans.

For me, I can’t become a Catholic, nor even consider it, as long as that”Mary, the Mother of God” nonsense exists. Mary was a human woman, created by God, not His mother. She was, however the mother of the man, Jesus.

The thing is, Scripture is NOT UNCLEAR about what marriage is. Check out Matthew 19

That's just it - the only people who think this article is on target are those who aren't familiar enough with the Bible to see that each of these "traditions" have a pre-existing Scriptural basis. I hate to say it, but we live in a day and age where if it ain't John 3:16, nobody's heard of it.

The author should recognize that it was Martin Luther - and his translation of the Holy Bible - that allowed him to know so much about both the Catholic and Protestant traditions and from whence they came.

Thank you!

That’s why orthodox Lutherans do not claim the mantle of “protestant” but firmly assert that they are part of the Church, catholic.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

For me, I can’t become a Catholic, nor even consider it, as long as that”Mary, the Mother of God” nonsense exists. Mary was a human woman, created by God, not His mother. She was, however the mother of the man, Jesus.

Ah, the old Theotokos controversy. I wonder if you have read about the fights that happened in the Church in the 3rd - 5th century over that very term, "mother of God".

Many argued, like you do that Mary was just the mother of the MAN Jesus, not the Mother of God (which seemed to them, like it seems to you as if exalting Mary over God -- it doesn't, btw, but more about that in a minute)

However, let's examine a few things. You do agree that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God? That's a basic orthodox belief.

We are not like the Arians who state that Jesus was a lesser God or that He was created by God, or that he was a man who was "adopted" by God or that he was only God and the mantle of humanity was just a hoax.

you don't believe any of those, do you? you, I presume, believe in the orthodox belief of Him being completely God (from before time, uncreated, of one being, substance, homousis with the Father -- God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made) and yes also completely man.

you do believe that there two "natures" were inseparable, indivisable etc.

your point about "Mary was a human woman, created by God," -- is what we Catholics believe in too.

however, we say she was the holder of the womb in which Jesus came from -- and Jesus was wholly man and wholly God. Hence she was the Mother of God, Theotokos. She was not the "creator" of God, just like our mothers didn't "create" us, but they gave birth to us. In the same way Mary was the Mother of God, not His creator, not His equal in any way.

As the vessel in which Christ came into the world, she is worthy of respect, do you not believe that?

As I believe do Anglicans and Episcopalians, or at least the high church varieties of those faiths.

The author should recognize that it was Martin Luther - and his translation of the Holy Bible - that allowed him to know so much about both the Catholic and Protestant traditions and from whence they came.

Where do you get that?? Martin Luther was not the first to translate The Bible from it's original languages (it was originally in Hebrew and Koine Greek) -- that honor goes to the compilers of the Latin Vulgate translation.

The Church was perhaps too over-zealous to prevent mis-translations of The Bible into the new languages like German, English etc (remember that English wasn't standardised until well past Shakespeare's day).

Luther didn't open The Bible to let people know about tradition -- people read Latin far more easily in those days --- in the middle ages to be educated, you KNEW latin. Most people were illerate hence the passion plays teaching them about Christ and The Bible.

As remote as the flaky pro-choice Episcopalian and the starchy Bible-thumping Fundamentalist preacher may seem to be from each other, they share a deep commonality in the way they reject whatever aspect of Catholic teaching they dislike.

They use these same methods to reject each others' doctrines when desired. It's not aimed specifically at the Church.

It's all really very simple. One has two choices in establishing doctrine:

1. Establish an infallible source of doctrine that can promulgate dogma that cannot be disputed. That's what Catholicism has done.

2. Allow each person to choose what he will believe, or what stress he will put on different parts of the Bible, tradition, etc. In practice that is what Protestantism has done, as any believer who becomes unhappy with the doctrine of his church can just shop around till he finds one that suits. Not that most Protestant churches are particularly interested in doctrine anymore.

There really is no third choice, short of the return of Christ visibly.

PING! for later reading/debating

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

Of course she deserves respect, but as a woman who followed God to the best of her ability and as God granted her Grace. But I don't need a meadiatrix between me and God, I already have Christ. Is He not sufficient?