Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[the_conscience]

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?

[stfassisi]

“”I don’t see the part where Luther states the Reformation was a mistake””

Perhaps you should read more on Luther ,dear friend.
Like this...

“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

“”The ‘errors’ referenced have been around since the beginning.””

You’re correct,but now these errors and many others are rampant now further dividing Christianity into a religion of pluralism with no unity.

The Catholic Church is the only source of Concrete dogmatic teachings,like it or not,protestantism only holds to some of these concrete teachings because the Catholic Church made them concrete and unchangeable because Our Blessed Lord gave them to the Church. Read the quote I gave you from Luther again,he even admitted it

[roamer_1]

Again, the real objection is to what mother of God conveys, that of God having a mother.

... along with the fact that "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" have been the titles of Semiramis (The "actual" Whore of Babylon), and her successors in the pantheon. There isn't *anything* in the Bible that promotes "goddess" worship, and MUCH that speaks against it.

[...] If her biological contribution [...]

That isn't said.

[RnMomof7]

Mary is of the same nature as ONE of His TWO natures, namely the human nature.

But if she was sinless she had the same nature as He did.All she would have added was a body

[HarleyD]

You make choices daily without perfect knowledge, but those choices are freely made

People sin because they are carried away by their own lusts. They don't sin because of making right decisions. Sin is driven by emotions, not knowledge.

Unless you are using a definition that Cronos & the rest of us, including Arminius, are not. And if you are doing that, you are arguing with yourself.

I'll stand by my definition even if it means arguing with myself. The scripture mentions-occasionally-man's will. It does not mention free will. Christians are led. We're led to the Promise Land. He leds us besides still waters. We pray for God not to led us into temptation. The Spirit leads us. The word leads us. The scriptures also tells us that people are blinded. We can be led by false prophets. We can be led astray. Do you see a pattern?

“God does not reveal himself to us in varying degrees.” Really. We all have equal knowledge of who God is and how he would have us live?

Yes. I would suggest reading Romans. You've quoted it several times now.

Everything there is to know about God is there. It is plain to us because God has shown it to us. We are without excuse. We can't say we didn't understand.

Please tell the Wycliffe Translators to stop their work and relax! Dang, and I’ve been giving to missions for nearly 40 years...

And keep on giving. It is commanded of the Lord to carry His word out to the world. But it won't save a soul unless the Holy Spirit acts upon it.

Actually, God will damn them for their unbelief - indeed, they are damned already, unless they repent.

People are already damned.

“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. / Also true words.”... True words, but often taken out of context.... refers to their descendants as heirs of the promise to Abraham, not individual salvation for Jacob, Esau, or anyone else.

The context of Romans is NOT taken out of context. Please review:

Rom 9:10-13 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Paul is not talking about two nations. He is talking about two people. But it really wouldn't make any difference. The text clearly shows that God love one and hated the other, didn't He?

[RnMomof7]

Sola Scriptura is a false tradition of men. Run from it, if you can.

yea heaven forbid that we use GODS WORD as our final authority .

[RnMomof7]

What makes you think God wanted there to be sin in the first place and wanted to be crucified? If you say God WANTED sin in the world than God Crucified Himself

Could God made man in a way he would not choose to sin?

This should make you understand that God is merciful, not some monster God that calvin invented who creates some people for hell only

If there was no sin you would have no way to know God is Holy and know His grace and mercy.. it is sin that allows man to see that

Consider this, it is not tht God chooses only to save some, it is a miracle He chooses to save any, because we all deserve hell

God giving man a free will was the act of Love, man freely sinning against God is opposite of love.

All men have a free will, but they can not will what is against their nature..

Since God knows everything at once in one NOW, all of our free decisions are before Him and already seen ,thus our Salvation is not by chance.

So Gods actions are dependent on ours? Who is god in that situation?

The love that God wills is the first cause of everything, thus not reactionary and that love conquers all sin and evil forever. God knowing the history of man’s free decision does not mean history is dictated to God , it only means God allowed man to freely reject or accept His will

Of course it does, God is mans puppet on a string ... Does God have a free will?

Without man being freely and totally at fault you end up with Christ killing Himself .Your scenario’s let men off the hook for sin

God ordained the cross before the foundation of the earth was laid, Christ did kill Himself... John 10:17 Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 18 No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Again ,you’re forgetting that the Resurrection proved man’s sin has been defeated and death lost

Indeed it proves that the Father accepted the sacrifice and that sin and death is defeated

[Cronos]

The comparison was about the incapacity of the lesser to give glory to the greater in such an arrangement.

the lesser gives glory to the greater -- in the example you gave you cannot say "Professor Higgins to call Liza Doolittle the mother of Professor Higgins?" because Liza Doolittle was NOT the mother of Prof. Higgins. Liza Doolittle was moulded by Prof. Higgins and her ability to perform in society was a winning point for Prof. Higgins (remember the bet at the start of the movie?)

Similarly, calling Mary as Mother of God glorifies GOD for choosing to come down to us as Jesus Christ, wholly man and wholly woman. God came down and was born of one of His creations! (for Mary was/is just a creature, not divinity in any possible way)

The Ark of The Lord is hailed, and that gives glory to what it contained, to what it pointed to -- to God.

[RnMomof7]

“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

Thank God Luther is not our pope.. or we would have to agree with him :)

[Cronos]

Misdirection and straw dogs do not advance dialogue.

What misdirection or straw dog?

What did post #7636 say?

No, this is what Scripture tells me, otherwise, do you not believe that Christ was/is wholly man and wholly God?

Scripture points out to us who believe in the Trinity that the Godhead is Triune.

It tells us that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man, not just a man.

Jesus was also not NOT a man, i.e. He was not a pure spirit with no human body -- He came down to earth as a man as ONE OF US, yet not quite one of us, both man and God, man-God, both natures inseparably and utterly intertwined in one "person".

The term Theotokos was advanced to combat Nestorianism and Arianism -- the former insisting that Jesus was wholly God and the latter that Jesus was wholly Man. Using the term Mother of God for the vessel blasts both heresies -- no way could the human vessel contain the pure spirit of God, no way can the Mother of God have given birth to just a man. And, I re-emphasise, this vessel, the Mother of God, was a created being, a creature, created by God, so very strangely God came to be born of one of his creations.

[Cronos]

The mutual vocabulary is quite simple You, Quix, do believe that:
1. Mary was created by God
2. Mary was lesser than God (naturally due to statement 1)
3. Mary gave birth to Christ who WAS God
4. Christ is God, our One Lord, of one substance with the Father, true God from True God, begotten not made, of one being with the FAther, through whom all things were made.
5. Christ is also man made incarnate
6. Christ is 100% and 100% man

Do you agree with these 6 points?

7. Christ was born on this earth to Mary, a creature, a created being (Mary did not "create" Christ any more than your mother or mine creates a soul for us.)

Do you agree with THAT?

So you have the piquant situation where Mary gave birth to Her creator. You have God coming down as Man AND God -- He didn't come just as a Man, He didn't possess some bloke called Jesus, Jesus WAS God.

All of these simple vocabulary we Trinitarians believe

[Cronos]

surrogate motherhood.

Are you saying that Christ was not human? Because He was -- as well as God. If you consider it a surrogate motherhood, then you consider that God put a Baby into Mary's womb whole, which was not a Man among men.

[Cronos]

I said: I ask you, is calling Mary “Mother of God” incorrect, based on the points I said above. And Mary is not compared to Jesus — she’s just the vessel, but any vessel that contained God is blessed, LOOK AT THE ARK!

You say It’s brazenly incorrect, cheeky, power grubbing absurdity in it’s conotations and implications

How? It's not absurd to say that Christ was wholly man and wholly God and it's not absurd to say that He was born of a woman, born of Mary. Mary didn't "create" Christ (how can a creature give birth to the creator?), she gave birth to Him, Him who was wholly God and wholly man.

Neither does your mother "create" you, or my mother "create" me -- they gave birth to us, but God created us, God gave us our spirit, our soul.

We share our physical DNA with our mothers, but our spiritual "DNA" i.e. our soul is FROM God alone.

[Cronos]

However, I do agree with your point that anyone who believes in the trinity CANNOT deny Mary is the mother of God....if Jesus and God the Father are actually one.

Pardon me, NGZ -- your statement is another contentious point: you're basically arguing against The Trinity. We should take that, but your point HERE is a good one nonetheless: "anyone who believes in the trinity CANNOT deny Mary is the mother of God....if Jesus and God the Father are actually one." * NOTE to everyone else -- what's in quotes is what NGZ, a non-Trinitarian posted

[Cronos]

NGZ: However, I do agree with your point that anyone who believes in the trinity CANNOT deny Mary is the mother of God....if Jesus and God the Father are actually one.

QUix: Trinitarians do not deny the basic facts. True, all Trinitarians believe that Christ was 100% and 100% man and that Mary was His Mother (all glory to God!) and that Mary was a created human being

We insist that the label is inappropriate. Why, if you agree that Christ was 100% and 100% man and that Mary was His Mother (all glory to God!) and that Mary was a created human being

Grossly and horrendously inappropriate in it’s connotations and implications. What connotations? The term Mother of God does not take away that Mary was a creature, a created being and one who had nothing to do with the eternal DIVINITY of God -- no more than your or my mother creates our soul.

The relationship was real. The connotations and implications are grossly inappropriate. if you agree that the relationship was real, and we both agree that Mary was a creature, a created being, created by God (Mary ain't divine in any way) and one who had nothing to do with the eternal DIVINITY of God -- no more than your or my mother creates our soul

[Cronos]

God’s act of humbling Himself to take on the form of man . . . was . . . and remains . . GOD's ACT

YES it was God's Act, through His chosen vessel, Mary, who consented to the angel's request

Mary was a servant, a tool, a vessel. Period.

YES, Mary was a vessel, a tool, just like the Ark of the Covenant. She gave birth to the 100% GOD, 100% Man, Jesus Christ. She did NOT create Him no more than your mother created you. She was a creature, a tool, a created human being, yet she gave birth to God -- Jesus Christ

[Cronos]

It takes a non-Trinitarian person to logically state it

if one believes in the trinity, there is no getting around it.

If Jesus is God, then Mary would be the mother of God.

That's what I don't understand. If people who believe in the trinity, that all three are just One, then one would surmise that Mary is God's mother.

[Cronos]

So do you believe that Jesus was created by God? Or that there are 3 or 2 Gods? Or that Jesus was an incarnation of God (just like Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu — not human, just God)?

[Cronos]

The label “Mother of God” would seem to imply that Mary existed before the Son of God existed. Mary did not exist in any form whatsoever before the Son of God was the Son of God.

It does NOTHING of the sort and that false, lying statement (not made by you of course, you're just pointing out an implication) has never been made by anyone throughout 2000 years.

Mary did NOT exist before the Son of God -- the Son of God has existed for all time, for eternity, the Son of God IS God, of one being, one substance with the Father.

Mary is and was a creature, a created human being. She did NOT exist in any form before her birth on earth.

btw, I know you don't mean it but the statement " before the Son of God was the Son of God." is incorrect as there was never a time when the Son of God wasn't the Son of God -- both Jesus and The Father are co-existent from before time.

“Unto us a son child is born, unto us a son is GIVEN.” Two natures in one Person. Not two persons, but two natures in one Person.

Yes, we agree -- Jesus was wholly man and wholly God.

God, NOR the Son of God came into being as a result of the Holy Ghost coming upon and overshadowing the virgin.

Yes, that we all agree on

The Son pre-existed from eternity in the bosom of the Father. Mary did not pre-exist; the human womb could not produce the eteranl Son.

Yes, that we agree on -- yet Mary did give BIRTH to Jesus, who was wholly God and wholly Man.

Mary did not create Jesus (that is absurd, as absurd as saying your mother gave you your soul or my mother gave me my soul), but Mary was His Mother.

[Mr Rogers]

“Could God made man in a way he would not choose to sin?”

God did. Adam didn’t HAVE to sin. Adam chose to sin, but it wasn’t inevitable. God knew what would happen, but he didn’t cause it. God doesn’t cause evil.

“If there was no sin you would have no way to know God is Holy and know His grace and mercy.. it is sin that allows man to see that”

Sounds like the old ‘we need darkness to know what light is’ argument. I’m not buying. Goodness doesn’t need evil.

“God ordained the cross before the foundation of the earth was laid, Christ did kill Himself...”

The death of Jesus was God’s answer to what he knew would happen. “22”Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

Adam’s sin didn’t surprise God, and God created man anyways. It suited his purpose. But God didn’t force man to fall. It was a fall, not a shove.

“So Gods actions are dependent on ours? Who is god in that situation?”

What does scripture say?

12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. 13Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. 14Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right, 15if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live.

17”Yet your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just,’ when it is their own way that is not just. 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it. 19And when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he shall live by this. 20Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.” - Ez 33

God isn’t the one who changes. But when we change, his actions with respect to us remain true to who he is, and so the outcome we experience changes.

[Cronos]

Cronos: If Jesus has both the human and divine natures intertwined in ONE person such that you cannot separate them and Mary gave birth to him, then yes, she gave birth to her creator, her God.

Iscool: You are making an assumption that they can not be separated... --> do you believe that the two natures of Christ -- God and Man can be or were or are separated?