Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum of—sometimes emotional—opinions.
On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).
On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.
It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."
Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."
If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?
"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."
To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
Ah! The Catholic politician bogeyman. Strange, I don't recall any of them being on the Supreme Court in 1973. But Methodist Harry Blackmun was.
Should we go on and count from each what the religion of those who push for abortion are from?
If you must. It's ultimately irrelevant since the Catholic Church has already declared what is to be held by Catholics on the matter. If they don't adhere that's on them. Unlike the ecclesial communities of Protestant whose views shift like the wind, according to the cultural norms of the day. But thanks for confirming for the rest of us what we already knew and what I just posted. Namely, that Protestantism is a numbers game.
Until one day, they don't have the numbers.
“So Jesus got is divine nature from Mary?”
Is that what I said? Nope.
“In the Dogma of the Trinity the Catholic Church says this.
“There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity”
Actually, you’re apparently quoting Gregory Thaumaturgus and for some reason you’re missing 43 words from the quote. Why would you leave out 43 words from a quote?
Here is the full quote as it appears in the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
So what’s your point?
“If Jesus was not fully human but indeed God and therefore Mary the mother of God.”
Jesus was fully human (except for sin). Why would you ever suggest that the incarnation of Jesus was a fraud?
“Who did Jesus pray to as superior?”
Jesus prayed to the Father for He was still His Father even though both are Divine. Do you not know this? Matthew 11:25-26; Luke 22:41-44; Luke 23:34; John 11:41-42; John 12:27-28; John 17:1-26; Hebrews 5:7.
“LOL it’s already a solid fact.”
Clearly not.
“Do you “decide” differently?”
A number of people here see the obvious.
“In that case, it is not you who will decide that you don’t understand the Holy Spirit and God.”
Right, it won’t be me - and certainly won’t be you.
This is where the misapprehension lies. There is nothing in "Mother of God" that's opposed to "Mother of Jesus."
Like good judges, we should take care to look into the legislative history. You with me on this?
The term "Mother of God" came out of the Council Ephesus (431 AD)specifically to uphold he Biblical rtuth about Jesus and refute the Nestorian heresy. Jesus possesses fully the nature of God and the nature of man: we can describe Him as true God and true man.
He has a human body and a human soul. With His brain He thought just as other humans think. With his will and His emotions he desired, and chose, and loved and felt just as other humans do. Scripture says that He is human, like us in all things, except sin.
That is His human nature. Because He is a Divine Person,the Eternally existing Word and Son of the Father, equal to the Father and the Spirit in all things, He also has a divine nature. He is One Divine Person with two natures.
If Jesus was two different persons, then the Incarnation didn't happen. OK. No controversy so far, I hope.
Nestorius did not get it. He believed that Jesus Christ was "part" man. He believed that that Mary gave birth to Jesus, a being who was not-quite-human, separate from the divine Logos (a different person) but sort of possessed by Him. Nestorius thought Jesus did not have a human soul, so that in a sense he was a puppet. He was only wearing a "human costume," He was pretending to be human.
Nestorius didn't seem to grasp that in the absence of a human soul, Jesus would be a simulacrum, a zombie, in Hebrew terms a golem, less than human. This denies the reality of the Incarnation.
It was Nestorius who proposed that the long-used title for Mary, Theotokos ("God-bearer") --- derived from Elizabeth's greeting ("Who am I that the mother of my LORD should come to me?") --- was wrong, because the "man" Mary bore was neither really Man nor really God. It was Nestorius who proposed to substitute an innovation, a term he had coined, Christotokos, Christ-bearer.
The Council found him wrong because they saw that this was a rejection of the Incarnation, the fact that there is one Divine Person who possesses two complete natures, and that Jesus does indeed have a human soul (with human intellect and will) as well as the Divine attributes of infinite intellect and will.
Since any mother gives birth to a person (and not just a "nature,") Mary is the mother of the Person Jesus Christ, God and man.
It means she carried Him, Jesus Christ our God, in her womb and gave birth to Him. It does NOT mean she is "older than God" or some sort of Mothergod or goddess, or the "Source of the godhead" or "Mrs. Trinity" or that she somehow parthenogenically generated divine qualities or any such nonsense.
Just Google "Council of Ephesus," and you will see the legislative history. The whole intent of the title "Theotokos" is to safeguard the Biblical fact that Jesus is one Person with two complete natures.
“And Jesus said to him “you are a pebble”.”
Actually, no. That’s a common false argument among some Protestants. Protestants have come up with various ways to explain away Matthew 16. Look up the old Abingdon Bible Commentary from the early 1960s. I couldn’t believe it when I first heard about this so I actually bought a copy in the late 1990s to check. I regret having given it away when I moved. The Protestant editors simply claimed that the whole “Peter you are Rock” episode was interpolated into the text by Catholics. That’s how they got around the problem of a “too Catholic” sounding interpretation of Matthew 16. They simply said it wasn’t really part of the Bible! I kid you not.
I guess the urge for Protestant anti-Catholics to lie is just something they can’t overcome.
Actually I don't. I love them very much and feel sorry for them. They are pitiful, ignorant creatures. If you want to be honest about it look at the dynamic here on the RF: Protestants who get up every morning with the sole purpose of engaging in their own personal brand of "Christian fellowship" by mocking Catholics and spreading falsehoods about the Catholic Church. This is their church. It's sad and pathetic.
You may as well include the millions of non Protestant Christians in your accusation.
Why? They may be ignorant but their ignorance isn't accompanied by arrogance. In addition:
Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth (John 9:41).
“Simple question...did the Son of God, second person of the Trinity, exist BEFORE he was incarnated?”
Of course.
“What a racket.”
Some people have called Christianity that.
“Catholics get to decide everything about every body and scream like a stuck pig when they think someone else is doing it to them.”
No, the Church gets to decide many things because it was given authority to do us. It seems that it is the anti-Catholics here who are squealing like stuck pigs.
I can't find Catholic Church anywhere in scripture. I tend to view it as a marketing technique used to make a sale with people who do not really want to face Jesus alone.
Show me one anti Catholic post of mine and I will agree with your supposition.
“I accept this post as your refusal to give consideration to any of my future FR posts.”
Oh, and all the anti-Catholics’ posts here are brimming with “open-mindedness”?
“But what about the others here who also are speaking the truth to you? Nothing they can post either...?”
Anti-Catholics don’t speak the truth. I just noted an example about the Abington Bible Commentary in another post. This is the default position of Protestant anti-Catholics:
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation. There are indeed able men who can make a striking case out of anything or nothing, as great painters give a meaning and a unity to the commonest bush, and pond, and paling and stile: genius can do without facts, as well as create them; but few possess the gift. Taking things as they are, and judging of them by the long run, one may securely say, that the anti-Catholic Tradition could not be kept alive, would die of exhaustion, without a continual supply of fable.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
God does.
By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world (2 Peter 1:4).
But thanks for posting the CCC that shows that the Catholic Church adheres to Scripture.
Protestants abuse God's privilege and assume for themselves the power that rightfully belongs to God to declare what is true, right and just.
“Show me one anti Catholic post of mine and I will agree with your supposition.”
It doesn’t matter if you agree or not. The truth of something is not effected by your agreement or disagreement with it. You just got done saying, “I accept this post as your refusal to give consideration to any of my future FR posts.” And now you want me “to give consideration” to one those posts. Enjoy.
Not sure what you mean there.
No authority was given to the Catholic Church to do "you" or even to decide "many things"
But then it is acceptable when we see that the authority was given to Catholicism by men, not God.
But maybe the Catholic Church was given authority to "do us" what ever that can mean
Fine with me what ever goes on between you and your belief system. Seems kinda strange though, but what ever floats yer boat.
“Not sure what you mean there.”
Why do you think that is? “I accept this post as your refusal to give consideration to any of my future FR posts.”
“No authority was given to the Catholic Church to do “you” or even to decide “many things””
“I accept this post as your refusal to give consideration to any of my future FR posts.”
“But then it is acceptable when we see that the authority was given to Catholicism by men, not God.”
“I accept this post as your refusal to give consideration to any of my future FR posts.”
“But maybe the Catholic Church was given authority to “do us” what ever that can mean”
“I accept this post as your refusal to give consideration to any of my future FR posts.”
“Fine with me what ever goes on between you and your belief system. Seems kinda strange though, but what ever floats yer boat.”
Apparently this floats yours: “I accept this post as your refusal to give consideration to any of my future FR posts.”
First you falsely accuse me of being anti Catholic and you were called on it—to prove it.
You can’t, so you attribute a quote to me that I did not post.
And you expect to have credibility?
None, zero, nada at all. Period.
You need to take a rest.
STOP falsely attributing posts to me that I did not post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.