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?

[Cronos]

that all Good she got from God.

Of course -- no sane Catholic would say otherwise and The Church reiterates that -- Mary was a creature created by God, all the grace she got was from God. She was not God in any way.

[Cronos]

MoG is not like the Ark of the Covenant, for while vessel would equate to ark, and so “vessel of God” would be correct, “mother of” denotes an ontological oneness with that which she is the mother of, but to which aspect she contributed nothing.

She gave birth to Jesus, she carried Him in her womb and gave birth to Him. Hence she was His Mother but she did not create the creator. In the same sense your mother gave birth to you and did not create your spirit or soul. Jesus was a man of the line of David and he was GOD.

[Cronos]

It’s a very slippery slope when one wants to equate Mary with Christ or then apply her in a familial relationship as a Mother rather than as a servant or daughter of man, but instead attempt to elevate her as “Mother of God”. because the object of that title is Mary and not God.

I disagree because this is not an elevation, but a statement of the fact that she bore Christ who was God. She was the Theotokos, the God-bearer. The aim of the title, if you read was God, Christ's nature, not Mary.

Additionally, the slope gets slippery when one attempts to hinge their identity of Jesus Christ as both human and divine nature in one person upon demands that Mary must also be of the same nature as the Son of God.

But we aren't doing that -- Mary was not of the same nature as the Son of God because Jesus had both human and divine natures -- Mary only had a human nature like us.

The reason for the question about the soul, is that Jesus Christ is also man, with a human body, a human soul, and a human spirit, but as the second Adam, each was perfect as the Perfect man.

Yes, Jesus is a man and God.

Denying Mary as the Mother of God, does not deny the Divinity of the Son, nor that Jesus Christ was God, nor that Jesus Christ was human, nor that He was and has those same natures in one person today as then.

Yet it does -- look at a Non-Trinitarian noGrayZone's posts or look at Nestorian's legacy or Arius'. Denying that term ultimately leads to the denial of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ as is clearly proved by NGZ's posts.

[Cronos]

Sorry, but by definition free will must require full knowledge or it can't be free. You can't make a choice for heaven or hell based upon flawed information and still expect it to be "free" will.

Yes. Our kids have free will, yet a toddler will go and walk into a table and hurt herself. Yet they do have free will -- they don't have judgement or knowledge but they do have free will.

[Cronos]

You will find that many of the Protestant confessionals of the early 1600s contain many of Calvin's beliefs. Whether these were his beliefs that were poured into the confessionals or whether these were Protestant beliefs that he articulated in his Systematic Theology which is still in use today, is argumentative.

Ok, this is the non-theological, historical thread debate :-P

well, no, not really -- Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, etc. couldn't agree with themselves and split up (Meeting at Warburg? I can't remember)

[Cronos]

1. The Church has not in any way "bastardized" the Gospel.
2. We know what scriptures tell us and we follow it as the faith handed down to us from the Apostles

[Cronos]

I hereby declare myself lost.

Additionally, the slope gets slippery when one attempts to hinge their identity of Jesus Christ as both human and divine nature in one person upon demands that Mary must also be of the same nature as the Son of God. My lostness is specifically this: WHO says (much less demands) that Mary must (also) be of the same nature as the Son of God?
I'm not sure it's relevant, but in classical Ephesian/Chalcedonian Christology we say that IHS has 2 natures, human and divine, in one person. Mary is of the same nature as ONE of His TWO natures, namely the human nature.

No one in the history of The Church has EVER stated, inferred, implied or even suggested that Mary was of the same Nature a Jesus who had/has 2 natures: divine and human

[Cronos]

“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. / Also true words.”

True words, but often taken out of context. It is a quote from Malachi, not Genesis, and refers to their descendants as heirs of the promise to Abraham, not individual salvation for Jacob, Esau, or anyone else. That is why that verse is quoted in Romans 9-11, concerning why the Chosen People have rejected Christ, and what will be their fate.

I've been re-reading and meditating on Malachi and Micah thanks to you guys!

[Cronos]

Mark: Either Mary is the Mother of God or else she isn't. Either the Gospels are correct or else they are not.
Iscool: No, either you are correct or you're not...And you are not correct...Mary was never called the Mother of God in the Gospels or any other place in the scriptures...

Luke 1:43 --> Elizabeth greets Mary as the "mother of my Lord".

If you deny that Christ was God, then you can state that it's ok to just call her mother of Christ, but since you say Christ is God, Mary was the Christ-bearer, she bore Christ in her womb.

[Cronos]

When I first encountered Reformed theology on this site I was shocked to hear about this. Instead of going back to Calvin and the Reformers, for who I thought would taint my theology, I went back to many of the early church fathers-particularly Augustine.

May I ask if you read John Chrysostom, Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, St Clement? I found them very good to help me.

[xone]

* NOTE to everyone else -- what's in quotes is what NGZ, a non-Trinitarian posted

So a Catholic is pointing out, as evidence, what a non-Christian stated. I hope you didn't bang on the Calvinistas for their web link. Did you?

I don't know Greek, what is the literal definition of 'Theotokos'?

[xone]

#7811

[Cronos]

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.

The term is also used by Hera, Saraswati etc.

and the term King of Kings was used by Cyrus the Great of Persia first in 500 BC (Shahenshah) and by gods in the Hindu and Egyptian pantheon.

And the term God of Light or Son of God is used by Mithra

And the term Messiah derives from Zoroastrianism terms for this.

All of that means nothing beyond a term used -- the main term for Mary is Theotokos which translates directly as God-bearer. In non-Greek that is translated as Mother of God, just like Roamertokos means bearer of Roamer or mother of Roamer.

And, Mary is just a creature, a created being, created by God, not divine in any way.

[xone]

#7811

[Cronos]

Md: Christ has two natures: human and divine. 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

Are you saying that sinlessness implies divinity? Of course you aren't, right?

Mary was human, created. She was not divine. Divine implies a lot more than just sinning. Mary was not the creator, she was not from before time, she was a creature, created by God.

[Cronos]

Christians are led. We're led to the Promise Land

Yes, but led does not imply lack of free will. Just like the Israelites were led to the Promised land but grumbled half way through and got punished to wander for 40 years. They chose not to listen to God.

[Cronos]

Sola scriptura -- is that phrase in the Bible?

More importantly, by reading Scripture incorrectly we can lead to explanations to deny the Trinity (among many other errors).

[Just mythoughts]

Yes, but led does not imply lack of free will. Just like the Israelites were led to the Promised land but grumbled half way through and got punished to wander for 40 years. They chose not to listen to God.

Big difference and might even say a big problem for the so called modern era Christians, as Paul says ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (examples): and they are written for our admonition, (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (age) are come.

We have the script, those going over to the Promise Land did not.

[Cronos]

Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church and bring it back to its roots hence the term Reformation.

Luther's initial views were against material corruption. He did get carried away and he was used by GErman princelings who wanted to break away from the Holy Roman Empire. The views espoused by Calvin etc were anathema to Luther.

[xone]

we have not seen the Father, yet we have seen the Son

You are making too easy:

John 14:7

7If you really knew me, you would know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."