Posted on 08/17/2015 6:07:35 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
“I notice the early writings on Mary were not included in the canon.....so what does that same about them??”
It means that those writings were/are not necessary to our theosis. Many of them are part of or expressions of Holy Tradition, however. The Latin Church has two Marian dogmas, the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption of the Theotokos into heaven. As I understand it, acceptance of these dogmas in the Latin system are necessary to salvation. We do not have those dogmas, though I don’t know any Orthodox Christians who do not believe in the bodily assumption of the Theotokos.
What a list! ("Our Lady of the Underground"??)
When I see this quackery, I think - "Is all this caused by someone's need for gender egalitarianism?" The RCC response is like a culture that is trying to be "fair" to women.
"We need to elevate the woman figure so that everyone is treated fairly... I know: We'll write a prayer to MARY!"
So, let's dissect the "Hail Mary" prayer: Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are thou among women Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners
The whole thing reminds me of Satan's lying tactic: Take scripture, twist it, leave some out, and add something of his own to mislead people then have them repeat it over and over again until "VIOLA!" - it's so engrained that they'll fight for 562 posts to preserve the tenants of their "Holy Roman Catholic" church.
(We're addressing Mary. It's a prayer. We're praying to Mary.)
(Luke 1:28)
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
(Luke 1:42)
(That's stretching our limited understanding of both hypostatic union and chickens and eggs. To quote Daniel1212: "Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture." )
now and at the hour of our death Amen.
(Asking dead people for intercessory prayer? Unscriptural.)
True--and not OMNISCIENT either!
:D
Howdy Elsie -- hope all's well!
Hoss
I don't know either regarding rcc, but I do not that is not a requirement of salvation based on the Word.
placemarker
THANKS!
Well that is a step in the right direction!
The only reason its not used in western Christianity (Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) is because it's a Greek term and the liturgical language of the west has been Latin. There's no exact way to say "Theotokos" in another language. The closest English phrase would be "God-bearer". Mary is God-bearer.
Nice try but even saying that is "the only reason" is untenable and unreasonable.
1. As seen by the distinctive use of the title "priest" for NT pastors/presbyteros, from a Greek word word used exclusively for Hebrew or pagan priests (in Latin word "sacerdos" which is said to have no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter”) but never for NT presbyteros (outside all believers being calls priests), and Catholicism's choice of terms can easily be theologically driven - as here via imposed functional equivalence - versus a lack of lingual equivalents.
2. Since when is no exact way to say something a problem? I read that it has been found that the equivalent phrase "Mater Dei" (Mother of God) is more common in Latin and so also in the other languages used in the Western Catholic Church. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Titles)
The "Myroure of our Ldy" written for the Bridgettine nuns of Syon (fifteenth century) states,
Some saye at the begynnyng of this salutacyon Ave benigne Jesu and some saye after 'Maria mater Dei'...(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07110b.htm)
3. Rather than MOG being a satisfactory correct term or lacking one in Latin: “The term Theotokos — Θεοτοκος — does not mean the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation. In English one must translate Theotokos as “Bearer of God.” The correct Latin would be deipara or dei genetrix, not Mater Dei. (“The Significance of the Term Theotokos” from The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Fr. Georges Florovsky) June, 1987).
4. Rather than adding a qualifying note (such as God is careful to do in Rm. 9:5) that would make MOG more theologically correct, instead Catholicism uncritically abundantly and formally uses it as part of their hyperexaltation of Mary, even largely paralleling Christ.
All Catholics have no problem accepting that Mary is God-bearer.
For beginners, while what they end up with is a demigoddess to whom Christ owes His sinless blood to.
The disturbing thing is that numerous protestants claim to accept traditional Christian doctrine but refuse to admit that Mary is God-bearer.
You are now debating what I did not argue, and i am not representing or promoting a particular church belief that does, while you represent Catholic error.
In fact, I can show you numerous posts on this very thread where they vehemently insist that Mary "only gave birth to Jesus" and that his divinity was separate and not united with his humanity when he was in Mary.
If true, it is likely due to inability to articulate that what they are opposing is that Mary authored or contributed anything to the Divine nature of Christ, which the title "God" represents, and that Mary is ontologically the mother of Deity is what MOG most naturally conveys and is what is being protested.
his divinity was separate and not united with his humanity when he was in Mary. This is a heresy in Christianity.
As is attributing to Mary glory and attributes only God is shown having, including being the dispenser of all graces in Heaven, and the object of prostrating praise and prayer addressed to her in Heaven, which she can hear and respond to. Out of over 200 prayers in Scripture by believers, only the Lord is addressed and alone shown to be able to hear all such . Offering prayers in memorial before the final judgments does not do it, nor is asking one another to pray for you on earth translate into this.
The English translation of the original Greek statement reads that Christ was: "born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God,
Other, as show, deny that Theotokos means the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation, while this Chalcedonian Definition adds the qualifier, "according to the Manhood," which characteristic lack of continues to be an issue in the protest against MOG.
That has been accepted by the ENTIRE Christian world for 1600 years.
But which does not make it Scriptural, not any of the erroneous other accretions seen in the progressive deformation of the post-NT church (while yet holding to salvific truths) and the use of MOG cannot be divorced from the unScriptural exaltation of Mary which it is part of.
Try to link to the version you think you have (assuming you know how to link) or just proofread your work and correct it. Do not add to the scripture and work harder to copy and reference it correctly.
#1 It's word for word of what's in my Bible.
#2 I don't need to link or proofread or correct it. It's word for word.
#3 So, I'm guessing you're all out of accusations, answers or misdirection for me because Scripture proves me right and you wrong.
As already stated in another post your questions are a poor attempt to deflect from the real questions, but I’ll answer for GP.
Denominations are man made... I am a Jesus Chirst believing, Bible thumping, and God fearing man that believes every word of the Bible no more no less.
Deny the Trinity? I’ll let Holy Scripture answer that question.
Colossians 2:8-10
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;…
Who does that besides Luther and his ilk?
Catholics don’t. Why do you Prots have so many different bibles, by the way? Which one is you favorite flavor?
I now understand your screen name.
When you are reduced to making fun of the screen name, it means you were bested and humiliated and just ran out of bullets. Feel the burn?
Boo yay!
No burn at all.
LOL!
I just noticed that you quoted Wikipedia.
Nice try.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
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.