Replies

Observe the following verse:

The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
(John 4:11)

The word "sir" is "kurios," what in many places is translated "lord." When clearly applied to God, it expresses His supreme authority. But it is not like "theo," which is a specific reference to divinity, His nature as God.

In the passage above, the woman at the well does not know Jesus at all. Yet she calls him "kurios." It was a common title of respect and focused on a person's authority, not divine nature. Jesus uses the term Himself in His parables as the standard way to refer to figures of authority, such as the master of the vinyard. Or where He says you cannot serve two masters. Same word. The basic idea is "master," person of great authority. Yes, it can be applied to God, but it can be applied as well to any human authority. We do the same in English: "lord of the manor," etc. It is most certainly NOT the equivalent of the "Theo" in theotokus.

So when Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my lord," she would have been speaking of Jesus as the Messiah. He was to be the Son of David, the King of Israel, and "kurios" would be an apropos title for Messiah. But her words make no claim that Mary is "mother of God."

Remember, supposedly, the heresy the council was refuting was the false claim that Jesus acquired His divinity after coming into being physically. The point of "theotokus" was to assure the understanding that no, Jesus was God from the moment He came into being physically. The focus was Christological, not Marian.

And that's what I find intriguing about these debates. I'd bet a large sum of money that most folks on both sides believe the same thing about Jesus, that He always existed in His divine being, that He acquired His humanity in time through being born to Mary, and that there is a unity in His person, such that the divine and human natures, while distinguishable as to attributes, compose a single, seamless Person.

But these debates do not settle for solving that problem, but push beyond that to argue the status of Mary, which "theotokus" was not intended to do, at all. There are times I truly wish we could rejoice in the truths we hold in common, and resolve our differences in amicable conversation, rather than going incessantly in meaningless little circles powered by a fevered hostility. Don't people get tired of that? I know I do.

Peace,

SR

The word "sir" is "kurios," what in many places is translated "lord." When clearly applied to God, it expresses His supreme authority. But it is not like "theo," which is a specific reference to divinity, His nature as God.

Well explained. To complicate matters, the LXX (OT) replaced YHWH (Jehovah) with LORD throughout the OT. The KJV followed that tradition. This has led some to argue that Elizabeth was claiming "LORD" (Adonai) thus YHWH. The misunderstanding is on man and not God. For as revealed in the original Hebrew the Name of God is YHWH (Jehovah). A later Jewish tradition deemed saying or writing the Name was breaking the commandment of not taking God's Name in vain.

The Bible verse which helps us understand the distinction you explained between "Lord" and "God" is when Thomas exclaimed in John 20:28 "My Lord and My God."

I get tired of it, too. This is a hot topic on the RF and is most often posted by Catholics to criticize Protestants because they don’t believe exactly the same thing about Mary as Catholics do. Like you said well, we DO believe in the deity of Jesus Christ and that should be the primary focus as a common tenet of Christianity and not a distracting and counter productive boxing match to prove ones faith is more authentic than anothers.

If Catholics want to devote their lives to Mary, pray to her, worship her, it’s no skin off my nose. Just don’t condemn me if I don’t believe we should. Don’t scream I’m going to hell if I reject their dogma.

The word "sir" is "kurios,

I don't go back to the biblical languages because I don't know them, some Latin, useless, when it's brought into the conversation correctly can shed some illumination on the subject. Authority versus the nature as God (of Jesus) is what I make of this.

No the woman didn't know Jesus, and I have thought about the living water which I think is the Holy Spirit. Anyway, Jesus outright told her he was the one they awaited, the Messiah, which he does nowhere else in the NT. People had to figure it out for themselves, and Peter was the first to say that he was the Messiah, although "flesh and blood" didn't make Peter see that. I don't remember the Holy Spirit being mentioned but it must have been through the third Person of the Trinity.

Let's just jump ahead to this:

Elizabeth calls Mary "mother of my lord

I guess I miss the subtleties which turn out to be everything. I never meant to imply that Elizabeth's words claimed or implied that Mary was the Mother of God. That is how I tried to interpret it much later myself when my daughter wanted to know, when I was regularly praying the Rosary, no longer do, and I would say "Holy Mary, Mother of God".

She knows little to nothing about the faith or NT but she did catch that. I explained it just like I tried to heretofore, guess I failed at making the point or my point wasn't exact enough for people. A shame. Is God so hard on us that he expects us to understand some things beyond our understanding as if the more we know about the bible, ancient languages, history, that somehow that gives us a leg up to greater holiness or salvation itself? That would be absurd. Salvation isn't gained by knowledge but by very simple faith for some.

I don't think God is against knowledge or higher learning either, but it isn't meant for all and is misused by some or used to pull a power trip or control mechanism by some. I think you shared your knowledge in the proper spirit.

So now I'm a heretic. You would not know the full extent of what would be to others, heretical, but I'm not giving others ammunition to crucify me with. My intention was to find something I hold as true in the Catholic and Orthodox church and seem to have failed miserably.

Theotokos came later but is the same thing Elizabeth said Mother of her Lord, the Messiah for you and probably correct. She would have understood and awaited the Messiah.

I truly wish we could rejoice in the truths we hold in common, and resolve our differences in amicable conversation

Even if you go into a conversation meaning nothing but being totally benign, it has seldom, if ever, ended up that way for me. Catholics seem to be incapable of self scrutiny about their faith but affirm dogma to the bitter end. They can't give an inch. And neither can Protestants. Did you see how relentlessly they came after the OP? Post after post, like Mary is some kind of demon. You say we should seek and find common ground (my understanding of what you said). I agree but it isn't going to happen.

Now I took your post in a very benign, spirit of helpfulness or greater clarification. Then I look at your profile and see you are some version of Calvinist, historically millenialism, don't know what that means. Calvinist I associate with Presbyterian, various flavors, and now it's also Southern Baptist, various flavors. I really don't care. I don't have anything in particular against them. I've not had real good luck with ones I've known but don't hold it against them all.

I think we should find some common ground in love, appreciation of honor for Mary. If you don't want to pray to her. Fine. If you don't want to sing a hymn to her, don't sing it, even in church. Very simple. How can anyone not love Mary of the bible? She started out to be the same Mary for Catholics and Orthodox. The masses, grass roots, not the hierarchy kind of got carried away with it. Then the hierarchy comes in and gives a definition not found in scripture, a lot evidently wasn't in scripture. But when they become dogmas carrying a curse "if any man" (I assume that means any believers who understand what they are saying like a dissenter like Luther) disagreeing with it, an anathema comes down on them.

The Council of Trent has I'm not sure, close to 100 anathemas which Catholics have to believe or they are under a curse! The church has never resinded any of it. It's beginning to look like another gospel to me, the preaching of any other Paul pronounced with an anathema if anyone preached any other gospel than what he did. So who is wrong and who is right?

The new catechism gives people the option of conscience. I'm not sure just how much leeway that gives anybody, but if I in good conscience have disagreement, I am allowed that. But it doesn't make sense either because I wouldn't interpret it to mean that I made a mistake and want to get an abortion; I would not carry it to that extent.

The irony is that any Catholic can believe almost anything, and if they keep their mouth shut about it or not, they are tolerated to remain in the church doing all sorts of things and spreading all sorts of untruths. I shouldn't have gone this far with it. People can believe what they want so long as they don't trample on me and my right to believe what I struggle mightily to understand.

Now no criticism is intended on posting what looks like a valid archaeological finding about an early hymn to Mary dated about 250 CE I guess we are supposed to use now. I won't. 250 AD. I like that better. Obviously people started saying or singing the hymn some time before that but how long, nobody knows.

There are so many faces of Mary it gets totally confusing. Some titles are not true. Finally the church came down on Medjugorje which is long overdue, declaring the place a place of prayer but the seers are under the penalty of excommunication if they promulgate any more messages. How many have they led astray? Millions. Some of my friends, now dead, lived and swore by Medjugorje Not sure if they (the seers) can talk among themselves, not to tourists, what? There are other ones that I find questionable. It's just a part of what drove me away from church dogma and back to the Mary of the bible, self preservation of my soul from abuse and any more lies, even by priests who I know in my heart meant well but were getting carried away to a frightening extent themselves. And some few were quietly trying to weather the storm, and I know they were troubled by all that was going on around them but powerless to do anything about it.

One young priest I was frightened for his soul for months when he said God doesn't punish in this life. That's one belief in the Council of Trent that carries an anathema. The priest seemed to be doing fine, so I let it go, became a bishop faster and younger than most, and lost track of him.

The only time the church was in total agreement was on the day of Pentecost. They all were of one accord. It didn't last very long, did it? Jesus told us we would turn against one another in so many words.

We can start toward reconciliation by trying to be more accepting of one another wherever they are in their understanding of the faith and being more tolerant. Protestants need to quit foaming at the mouth any time a Catholic mentions Mary even though the understanding is different. The only ones de fide are the Assumption and Immaculate Conception but Catholics are not bound to believe any private revelation about any form of Mary or anything else, unless the church approves it.

It's a mess now, and I'd better try to edit it, sorry it's way too long and probably not what you or anybody wanted to hear. Just don't read it then. Ignore it.

Godspeed to all.