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?

[boatbums]

Thank you, stfassisi. We CAN agree on some points, can’t we. Let’s not forget another very important aspect of this all and that is Satan’s role in all things that reject and resist God. Satan is powerful, but he CANNOT see the end from the beginning. He knows the same things we know that God has revealed in his word, he can read, but he doesn’t see into the future. From Adam and Eve he has sought to ruin all good God has done or will do. Yet we know, and he knows, that he has already been defeated. Our God is so much greater than anything he can devise. Like Joseph, we can say, what you meant for evil, God meant for good. Praise his name!!!

[Cronos]

Iscool: You are starting at the end and trying to work backwards...You need to start at the beginning... In the beginning, God.... --> of course God existed before time -- God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Of course Mary was a created being, a creature, created by God. Of course Mary did not CREATE Jesus no more than your Mom creates for you your soul (or mine grants me my soul). And of course (for us trinitarians), Jesus was 100% and 100% man.

Let's take you for example...You were born of your Mother...Each of us (whether you believe it or not) has a body, a soul and a spirit...Is your Mother the Mother of your soul and your spirit???

Nope and I've repeated said that your Mother or my Mother did not create our soul or spirit. Neither did Mary in any way "create" God, Jesus Christ's "soul" or "spirit" -- that would be absurd, how can a creature create the uncreated Creator?

Just as your Mother is the Mother of Iscool, but is not the creator of Iscool's spirit or soul, Mary is the Mother of God, but had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus' "spirit/soul creation"

[Cronos]

It was necessary for Christ to have a human mother so he could be fully God and fully man.

Yes, dear RnMomof7 -- correctly stated. God condescended to come down as a lowly human being -- but one that was wholly God and wholly Man. His human mother, a creature, a created being was a necessary tool, a necessary creation for Him to be born.

[Cronos]

Man's purpose is to love God, his neighbour, and to imitate Christ. That is what God wishes for us. God's glory does not depend on creating and then crushing ants under His heel

Rightly put -- God is LOVE. God has no use for robotons

[Cronos]

The Council of Ephesus decreed in 431 that Mary is “Theotokos”. Doesn’t that mean God-bearer, or the one who gives birth to God?

Yes,Theotokos (Θεοτόκος, translit. Theotókos) is a compound of two Greek words, Θεός God and τόκος parturition, childbirth. Literally, this translates as God-bearer or the one who gives birth to God

In many traditions, Theotokos was translated from the Greek into the local liturgical language. The most prominent of these were Latin (Deipara, Dei genetrix and, as paraphrased, Mater Dei), Church Slavonic (Богородица translit. Bogoroditsa),

The term Mother of God has never been understood, or intended to be understood, as referring to Mary as Mother of God from eternity, that is, as Mother of God the Father, but only with reference to the birth of Jesus, that is, the Incarnation. This limitation in the meaning of Mother of God must be understood by the person employing the term. To make it explicit, it is sometimes translated Mother of God incarnate

However, those reading or hearing the English phrase Mother of God as a translation of a Greek text cannot — unless they know the Greek text in question, or obtain additional information — know whether the phrase is a literal translation of Μήτηρ Θεού or an imprecise rendering of Θεοτόκος or one its Latin equivalents or equivalents in other languages. Yet Luke 1:43 says "And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? "

I suspect most Protestants would find Theotokos - Bearer of God - easier to understand as a concept and less susceptible to misinterpretation than ‘Mother of God’. FWIW.

But it isn't misinterpreted -- no one in 2000 years has ever stated or insinuated or implied that Mary was anything but a creature. No one says that she was (very laughable) there at the time of creation -- she was NOT. Mary did NOT create God anymore than our mothers create our soul. We are beings of (as Iscool correctly put it) beings of flesh, spirit and soul -- and our mothers do not give us spirit or soul.

God the Son is begotten of God the Father "from all eternity" (if you believe in the Trinity -- Nograyzone, pardon!) but is born "in time" of Mary. Theotokos thus refers to the Incarnation, when the Second Person of the Holy Trinity took on human nature in addition to his pre-existing divine nature. We call Mary Theotokos to affirm the fullness of God's incarnation

The Council of Ephesus decreed, in opposition to those who denied Mary the title Theotokos ("the one who gives birth to God") but called her Christotokos ("the one who gives birth to Christ"), that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. As Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.


The use of Theotokos was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. The competing view, advocated by Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, was that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning "Birth-giver of Christ," to restrict her role to the mother of Christ's humanity only and not his divine nature.

Nestorius' opponents, led by Cyril of Alexandria, viewed this as dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, the human who was Son of Mary, and the divine who was not. To them, this was unacceptable since by destroying the perfect union of the divine and human natures in Christ, it sabotaged the fullness of the Incarnation and, by extension, the salvation of humanity. The council accepted Cyril's reasoning, affirmed the title Theotokos for Mary, and anathematised Nestorius' view as heresy.

Explaining his rejection of Nestorius' preferred title for Mary (Christotokos), Cyril wrote: "Confessing the Word to be united with the flesh according to the hypostasis, we worship one Son and Lord, Jesus Christ. We do not divide him into parts and separate man and God as though they were united with each other [only] through a unity of dignity and authority... nor do we name separately Christ the Word from God, and in similar fashion, separately, another Christ from the woman, but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own flesh... But we do not say that the Word from God dwelt as in an ordinary human born of the holy virgin... we understand that, when he became flesh, not in the same way as he is said to dwell among the saints do we distinguish the manner of the indwelling; but he was united by nature and not turned into flesh... There is, then, one Christ and Son and Lord, not with the sort of conjunction that a human being might have with God as in a unity of dignity or authority; for equality of honor does not unite natures. For Peter and John were equal to each other in honor, both of them being apostles and holy disciples, but the two were not one. Nor do we understand the manner of conjunction to be one of juxtaposition, for this is insufficient in regard to natural union.... Rather we reject the term 'conjunction' as being inadequate to express the union... [T]he holy virgin gave birth in the flesh to God united with the flesh according to hypostasis, for that reason we call her Theotokos... If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is, in truth, God, and therefore that the holy virgin is Theotokos (for she bore in a fleshly manner the Word from God become flesh), let him be anathema." (Cyril's third letter to Nestorius)

[Cronos]

Could be — the books are an opportunity to spread our Christian faith. However, I, personally, do know Muslims who say “Aha — see, this book shows PROOF that Christ was not divine — that he had kids and died.” and then the Muslims point out Christ’s supposed tomb in Kashmir.

[xone]

much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true:

No doubt, Luther was a Catholic. No surprise here. Lutherans (including Luther) don't say the (Roman) Catholic Church is errant on all points of doctrine, just some. Where (R) Catholicism makes it dogma or doctrine and is errant, the Lutherans will object as did Luther. Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church and bring it back to its roots hence the term Reformation. As other Catholics including yourself have noted, there were changes that needed to be made that the Catholic Church did make. However the errors continue to day on a number of subjects. viv a vis Lutherans and Catholics.

Lutherans today are not bound to Luther's personal views

snip

www.lcms.org

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.

I must gently call cow splat. God made them concrete and unchangeable, not Catholics and He did give them to His Church, the one comprising all He calls via the Holy Spirit.

[Cronos]

But let's, for the moment, say that faith is a "two-way street". Then you are still implying that God has to give at least a half measure. What is the difference between God giving us a half measure of faith or a whole measure of faith?

God gives us full measure when we accept it -- remember that our act of acceptance is "Rom 10:17 So Faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ"

[Cronos]

To use any other term beyond Theotokos denies one of the following:
1. Christ was God,
2. Christ was a man,
3. Christ was both, completely, utterly and at the same time.

YES, WE KNOW “all” about Jesus being God. -- that's good, we all agree that Jesus was wholly God and wholly Man -- do you agree with the latter part, that Jesus was WHOLLY MAN??

And you agree that he was born of Mary, who gave birth to Him, Him who was God and Man, and since she gave birth to Him (but didn't create Him, any more than your mother created your soul and spirit), she is His Mother.

[xone]

I point you to # 7787, and the HTML efforts of a blind squirrel/broken clock. Thank you both.

[Cronos]

The triune God existed for all eternity, He has no beginning and no end and so He has no mother

Of course, we don't imply in any way that God the Father was born of Mary, yet God the Son was -- and yet God the Son has no beginning and no end either, yet He had a mother in some finite point in time, and that mother was a creature, a created being. Isn't God wondrous?

[Cronos]

However, I have no interest in haggling with you about it.

Quite incorrect, Quix. NGZ asks a question to which we as Christians are bound to answer. It's a valid question and I've heard Muslims and Hindus ask the same thing -- it sounds strange to mortal ears to hear of a Triune God.

[Cronos]

If man truly had a free will, he would sit between heaven and hell and make some rational decision as to which way he would like to go.

But that's assuming we KNOW everything or anything. We don't.

And we don't have rational judgement. Our nature is not so wise.

Man cannot save himself, God saves us, we only humbly accept the hand that is inches from us.

[Cronos]

She is the mother of Dawg, the kynotokos.

Ah, nerd humor ;-) we both laugh at that!

[Mr Rogers]

HD “The scripture mentions-occasionally-man’s will.”

The scriptures mentions men choosing all over the place! And it mentions men REJECTING God’s will all over the place. Leading still involves choice. I spent enough time in the military to know there is a difference between a commander and a leader.

Me “We all have equal knowledge of who God is and how he would have us live?”

HD “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.”

Let’s see what it ways in Romans:

“12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” - Romans 2

We all have enough revelation to have no excuse. However, the Jews had much greater revelation than the Gentiles, which is why Paul contrasts them...and shows they still sinned.

“1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?”

Jesus said, “13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.”

HD “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.”

No, he is talking about two people, and how the Jews inherited the promise, and the Edomites did not. Before verse 10 comes verses 1-9...

” 1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed.”

He is talking about hos Israel rejected Christ, even tho they ARE the inheritors of God’s promise.

Not all those born of Abraham inherited the promise.

“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

When they want to know who the promise went to, it wasn’t any child of Abraham, but the child of the promise. Then God made another cut:

“10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though 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— 12she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

So the inheritance of the promise passed on through Jacob, not Esau. As Malachi wrote:

“2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the LORD. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” 4If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the LORD of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.’” 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the LORD beyond the border of Israel!” - Malachi 1

As an aside, the passage in Genesis shows both predestination and free will - Paul says “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”, yet we also read in Genesis:

29Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted. 30And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!” (Therefore his name was called Edom.) 31Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright now.” 32Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” 33Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. 34Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.”

So Esau chose to sell his birthright, consistent with who he was, and yet God had also chosen it.

It doesn’t help my case to admit it, but there are passages that make one believe there is more involved than we understand, which may be why people like John MacArthur and J Vernon MacGhee see a paradox that cannot and should not be resolved.

Still, the passage in Romans 9 is about inheriting the promise to Abraham, not individual salvation. And Chapter 9 finishes with “ 30What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.”

Chapter 10 continues the discussion, starting with “1Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” and ending with “21But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

And here is a point in MY favor - for in hardening hearts, God also points out that “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” God doesn’t harden what hasn’t earned it.

Chapter 11 starts with, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” He points out that while many Jews (not all) were hardened, it gave an opening for the Gentiles to be grafted in. He reminds the Gentiles not to boast about this, for “24For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.”

He then reaches his conclusion: “25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And in this way all Israel will be saved” and “29For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”

Sorry for the long post - I’m sure Dr E would find it too long to read - but 3 chapters are hard to summarize quickly. God chose that the line would pass thru Jacob, but his decision was proven by how Esau acted - freely. Yet he didn’t hate Esau, any more than we hate our mothers. God blessed Esau and made a nation out of him - but that nation didn’t inherit the promise.

And all of that is quite different from the promise given to us by Jesus, the promise of faith:

12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16”For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned... John 3

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3

24Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. - John 5

And on and on it goes...

[xone]

Jesus talking:

John 10:30
30I and the Father are one.”

[Cronos]

she contributed nothing. Even though in the incarnation the two natures are co-mingled, Jesus was God before He took upon flesh, thus “mother of God incarnate” might be somewhat more acceptable

Your first statement that she contributed nothing does not gel with "He took upon flesh" -- Mad Dawg's post number 7724 puts it very well

Also, in a Catholic Mass, Mary is (outside of the Gospels) only mentioned in the recital of the Creed and when we ask saints to join us in prayer to God. The rest of the Mass, the holiest of worship to God is dedicated to God alone. To God alone the glory.

[Cronos]

Sola Scriptura does not lock God's word onto the printed page. It's the contents that matter, regardless of transmission. Sola Scriptura is just fine with illiteracy, in terms of it being no barrier to knowledge of the truth. God's words, in whatever form, are Spirit and they are life.

But Sola scriptura DOES lock God's word onto the printed page. Incidently the term sola scriptura isn't biblical either.

[Cronos]

As you can see by NoGrayZone’s posts, the term “Mother of God” hits right at non-Trinitarians and they cannot accept that.

[Cronos]

Pardon me, those two verses complement each other. In Exodus God says that thou canst see His face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And Jesus says because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

This implies the Trinity -- we have not seen the Father, yet we have seen the Son