Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

[Philip]

On a current topic posting ("The warning second coming website"), questions and disagreement have come up concerning various key teachings of Catholicism. I married into a Catholic family and my wife is a former Catholic. I love Catholics and have met many Catholics that I am certain are Christians. So my post here is certainly not meant to be, in any way, anti-Catholic, but is designed to pose questions and give information related to the various teachings of the Catholic Church - people can decide for themselves.

Here the posts are - they are assembled and posted by well-known apologist John Ankerberg on his website:

The Mass:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 2W1099.pdf

Eucharistic Adoration:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 1W0402.pdf

Examination of Catholic Teachings About Mary:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 3W0701.pdf

The Papacy:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 2W1100.pdf

Peter the First Pope?:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 3W1004.pdf
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDF ... 3W1104.pdf

Sanhedrin substituted tradition for Scripture:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 1W0899.pdf

Sola Scriptura Examined:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 2W0901.pdf

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 1W1199.pdf

How was the Bible Received?:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFA ... 1W1299.pdf

[Byblos]

Sure we can play this game too.

All of the above points are countered and/or explained in great detail, including (and here's the shocker) scriptural support .

http://www.newadvent.org

Just click on the search window in the upper right corner and type in the topic. Happy reading.

Here are a few:

The Pope
Infallibility
Saints
Prayers for the dead
Purgatory
OT Canon
NT Canon

[RickD]

Where's the proof for Mary being Queen of Heaven? The only references to the Queen of Heaven I could find, were of the Queen being an idol being worshiped. Maybe that's not just a coincidence.

Jeremiah 7:18
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to spite Me.

[Byblos]

Where's the proof for Mary being Queen of Heaven? The only references to the Queen of Heaven I could find, were of the Queen being an idol being worshiped. Maybe that's not just a coincidence.

Jeremiah 7:18
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to spite Me.

Before we get to Mary's titles, Mother of God, queen of heaven, etc, we must first know the reasons behind such doctrinal development. There's actually one single reason and that being to protect and defend the divinity of Christ against all heresies. So before we go any further, you might want to thank the doctrine for that, otherwise who knows what kind of Jesus you'd be believing in today.

Mother of God
The abridged version is that the Word was God, the Word was made flesh and Mary is the mother of the Word, ergo the Mother of God. Whoever denies that denies that Jesus is God, or at a minimum falls into the heresy of dualism. It's as simple as that. In addition, Elisabeth greated Mary with exactly such title (Luke 1:42-43).

Queen of Heaven
For this you need to go deep into the OT and research the role and title of Queen Mother. You will find that it wasn't reserved for the Davidic Kings' wives, for they had many. It was in fact reserved for the king's mother. As Jesus is from the Davidic line and the King of Kings of all including that of heaven, his mother's title is fittingly carried as the Queen of Heaven (Luke 1:31-33).

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
Mother of God
The abridged version is that the Word was God, the Word was made flesh and Mary is the mother of the Word, ergo the Mother of God. Whoever denies that denies that Jesus is God, or at a minimum falls into the heresy of dualism. It's as simple as that. In addition, Elisabeth greated Mary with exactly such title (Luke 1:42-43).

So a syllogism of what you said, might look like this:

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

In reality because Jesus is God who became man, the syllogism should look like this:

Jesus is God, who became man.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the man Jesus Christ.

In scripture, Mary is never called the Mother of God.

Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. (Mark 3:31)

Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. (Luke 8:19)

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (Acts 1:14)

Since Jesus is God, and has been in existence before his birth in Bethlehem, He existed before Mary.
So, Jesus got his humanity from Mary. She is not the mother of God.

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:
Mother of God
The abridged version is that the Word was God, the Word was made flesh and Mary is the mother of the Word, ergo the Mother of God. Whoever denies that denies that Jesus is God, or at a minimum falls into the heresy of dualism. It's as simple as that. In addition, Elisabeth greated Mary with exactly such title (Luke 1:42-43).

So a syllogism of what you said, might look like this:

Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

In reality because Jesus is God who became man, the syllogism should look like this:

Jesus is God, who became man.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of the man Jesus Christ.

In scripture, Mary is never called the Mother of God.

Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. (Mark 3:31)

Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. (Luke 8:19)

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. (Acts 1:14)

Since Jesus is God, and has been in existence before his birth in Bethlehem, He existed before Mary.
So, Jesus got his humanity from Mary. She is not the mother of God.

1) You have completely fallen into the heresy of dualism which separates Jesus the Man from the Jesus the God, the precise heresy the title guards against. Congratulations.

2) You do know that the word for 'brother' in Hebrew is the same one used for 'cousin' right? So those that are called Jesus' 'brothers' could very well be his cousins. I'm in favor of the opinion they were Jesus' half brother, from Joseph, from a previous marriage.

3) I showed you exactly where Elisabeth calls Mary 'the mother of my Lord'. Do you think Elisabeth, being a Jew could have used the word for 'God'? I don't think so.

4) and most importantly, what you're doing now is disagreeing with me on certain interpretations of scripture, which is fine and dandy. But what you absolutely CANNOT do from now on is claim that I don't have scriptural support, at least with respect to this topic. Let's keep that in mind going forward.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
1) You have completely fallen into the heresy of dualism which separates Jesus the Man from the Jesus the God, the precise heresy the title guards against. Congratulations.

Have I? I haven't separated anything. Jesus is eternally God. He became a man at his incarnation. Do you have a link explaining "heresy of dualism"?

2) You do know that the word for 'brother' in Hebrew is the same one used for 'cousin' right? So those that are called Jesus' 'brothers' could very well be his cousins. I'm in favor of the opinion they were Jesus' half brother, from Joseph, from a previous marriage.

I thought we were talking about NT. I must be really lost. I thought the OT was originally in Hebrew. The NT was Greek and Aramaic. There is a different word for brother and cousin in Greek. The word "brother" was used, wasn't it?
If they were Joseph's children from another marriage, why were they never mentioned? They certainly were Jesus' half siblings. I'll give you that.

3) I showed you exactly where Elisabeth calls Mary 'the mother of my Lord'. Do you think Elisabeth, being a Jew could have used the word for 'God'? I don't think so.

There's no problem with "mother of my Lord". Mary is not the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus. There is an important distinction.

4) and most importantly, what you're doing now is disagreeing with me on certain interpretations of scripture, which is fine and dandy. But what you absolutely CANNOT do from now on is claim that I don't have scriptural support, at least with respect to this topic. Let's keep that in mind going forward.

Sorry, still no scriptural support for "Mary Mother of God".

Byblos, this isn't rocket surgery. God has always existed. How could Mary be the mother of God, if He existed before she was born? Think about it.

[RickD]

And btw, here's scriptural support against Mary's perpetual virginity:

Matthew 1:25

but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

And this messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:8-9:
8 I have become estranged [a]from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.
9 For zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.


How do we know this is a messianic prophecy you ask? Because we read in John 2:15-17:
15 And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables; 16 and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a [a]place of business.” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house will consume me.”



So, scripture proves Mary did have other children.

[bippy123]

I will take the eucharist Rick.
During the last supper Christ told his disciples to take this and eat of it for this is my body which will be given up for you.
The koine greek word that The apostle John used for eat was trogo, and no where in the bible was trogo used except to denote a literal chewing and gnawing. Jesus meant this literally and not figuratively, and this is also why in the bible many of Christs followers left him because they couldn't understand how someone could eat the flesh of another , but his 12 stayed with him for as they said, his are the only words of eternal life.

If that is not enough , ask yourself what did the apostles teach their very students on the eucharist?
Lets start with Ignatious of Antioch , the third bishop of Antioch and a student of John the apostle who was taught by John himself.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

While I respect ankerberg's opinion on many Areas of appologetics, I will take the word of ignatius of Antioch over him by just a slight margin . Why? Because ignatius was a student of John the apostle and he would be in a prime position to understand what the apostles taught on the literal presence of the eucharist.
Rick do you trust what was passed down to ignatius of Antioch by the apostles or do you trust ankerberg's, who is re over from Christ and the apostles by almost 2000 years. Ill take ten word of the very student of the apostle John thanks.
Now the question is why don't you believe in the Eucharistic teaching? Is it because of a modern cultural view of Christianity?
It can't be because the earliest Christians didn't practice it?
Even the first Protestant Martin Luther believed in the eucharist but he called it co substantiation and not transubstantiation, but that contradicts what the earliest Christians believed .

Now lets go onto the early Church Fathers in the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century:
Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.

Next we go to Ireneaus of Lyon , another early church Father who was a student of polycarp, and polycarp in turn was a student of John the apostle. Irenaeus, teaching what was taught to him totally consistent with the apostolic fathers and Justin Martyr.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4,17,5:
Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ``This is My Body.'' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.

He taught the the new sacrifice of the New Covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: ```You do not do my will,' says the Lord Almighty, `and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offer to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the gentiles,' says the Lord Almighty.'' (Mal 1:11). By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles.''

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 18, 2, 180 A.D.:
It is not oblations as such that have met with disapproval. There were oblations of old; there are oblations now. There were sacrifices among the people of Israel; there are sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind of oblation has been changed: now it is offered by freemen, not by slaves. There is one and the same Lord, but the character of an oblation made by slaves is distinctive, so too that of an oblation made by sons: their oblations bear the mark of freedom.

We must make oblation to God, and in all things be found pleasing to God the Creator, in sound teaching, in sincere faith, in firm hope, in ardent love, as we offer the firstfruits of the creatures that are his. The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator when it makes its offering to him from his creation, with thanksgiving.

We offer him what is his, and so we proclaim communion and unity and profess our belief in the resurrection of flesh and spirit. Just as bread from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, made up of two elements, one earthly and one heavenly, so also our bodies, in receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, for they have the hope of resurrection.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, [5,2,2] 180 A.D.:
If the body be not saved, then in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body . . . He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

It is totally clear that the early Christians were taught by the apostles that the eucharist is the literal presence of Christ flesh and blood , but only under the bishop. Rick do you also believe this or do you not care what the early Christians were taught by the apostles and therefore passed down to the early church fathers. Notice that not once did the early Christians ever call the eucharist a heresy. They taught that Jesus is in the eucharist and not figuratively either. Again do you trust Ankerberg's personal interpretation or the students of the apostles and their early church fathers.

You can't just ignore the first 1500 years of Christianity and jump from Christ to martin Luther . This again comes down to personal interpretation which causes chaos and disunity between all Christians and authoritative interpretation (the power to bind and loose) which was given to the apostles and the early Christian church.

The is no doubt whatsoever what the early Christians believed as far as the eucharist . There isn't even one early Christian that spoke against it being the literal presence of Christ in the eucharist. Now what was the problem you have with Eucharistic adoration knowing full well who is present in the eucharist Rick ?

[bippy123]

Even Saint Augustine taught this about the eucharist.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html

St. Augustine, Sermons, [272] A.D. 391-430:
What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. ... How is the bread His Body? And the chalice, or what is in the chalice, how is it His Blood? Those elements, brethren, are called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, but another is understood. What is seen is the corporeal species, but what is understood is the spiritual fruit. ... `You, however, are the Body of Christ and His members.' If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and His members, your mystery is presented at the table of the Lord, you receive your mystery. To that which you are, you answer: `Amen'; and by answering, you subscribe to it. For you hear: `The Body of Christ!' and you answer: `Amen!' Be a member of Christ's Body, so that your `Amen' may be the truth.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, [33, 1, 10] A.D. 392-418:
`And he was carried in his own hands [3 Kgs 20:13 LXX? corrupted].' But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it was meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: `This is My Body.' For He carried that Body in His hands.

St. Augustine, Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418:

And adore the footstool of His feet, because it is holy [Psalm 98:9, LXX 99:9]. . .In another place in the Scripture it says: `The heavens are my throne, but the earth is the footstool of My feet' [Isa 66:1] Is it the earth, then, that He commands us to adore, since in this other place the earth is called the footstool of God's feet? . . . I am put in jeopardy by such a dilemma (Anceps factus sum): I am afraid to adore the earth lest He that made heaven and earth condemn me; again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of My Lord's feet, but because the Psalm does say to me: `Adore the footstool of My feet.' I ask what the footstool of His feet is; and Scripture tells me: `The earth is the footstool of my feet.' Perplexed, I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

Notice Rick that even Augustine said that no one can take the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist unless he adores it, as it is a teaching of faith passed down from the apostles to the apostolic father, from the apostolic fathers down through the years to the early Church father.
Do you believe what was passed down from the apostles down on, or do you reject it.
Remember that Christ said to the apostles that whoever hears you hears me.

The earliest Christians were u tied in the belief in the eucharist.
This is early Christian history.
All Christian appologetics have used the apostolic fathers to show that the early Christians believed in the divinity of Christ, but some evangelical apologists suddenly become allergic to their teachings when it came to things like the eucharist, the hierchial structure of the church among other things.

The doctrine of the trinity which was given to all Christians by the Catholic Church took over 250 years after Christ to fully develop , and it was the original church of Christ, the Catholic Church that developed the doctrine of the trinity.
The doctrine of the theotokos (Mary mother of God)also took this amount of time to develop. The trinity didn't just pop up overnight.

[RickD]

For those that are interested, this article speaks about the Eucharist, the Catholic view of the Eucharist(Transubstantiation), the church history regarding differing Eucharist beliefs, etc. It basically refutes what Bippy posted. Let the reader be the judge.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/transubstantiation.html

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:
1) You have completely fallen into the heresy of dualism which separates Jesus the Man from the Jesus the God, the precise heresy the title guards against. Congratulations.

Have I? I haven't separated anything. Jesus is eternally God. He became a man at his incarnation. Do you have a link explaining "heresy of dualism"?

My apologies one more time, I'm engaged in another debate elsewhere on the origins of the universe and had dualism on my mind. The heresy I intended here is Nestorianism, I'm sure you can look it up but here's a link that touches on it. Suffice it to say, Nestorianism denies the incarnation because it denies the hypostatic union of man and God, one person with 2 natures. This is precisely what the Mother of God title guards against and was very successful in doing so when Nestorianism was declared a heresy. Deny the title and you deny the Hypostatic union. Deny the Hypostatic union and you deny the incarnation. You can protest and deny that you're doing that all you want but history proves you wrong.

2) You do know that the word for 'brother' in Hebrew is the same one used for 'cousin' right? So those that are called Jesus' 'brothers' could very well be his cousins. I'm in favor of the opinion they were Jesus' half brother, from Joseph, from a previous marriage.

I thought we were talking about NT. I must be really lost. I thought the OT was originally in Hebrew. The NT was Greek and Aramaic. There is a different word for brother and cousin in Greek. The word "brother" was used, wasn't it?
If they were Joseph's children from another marriage, why were they never mentioned? They certainly were Jesus' half siblings. I'll give you that.

By that same logic they are never mentioned as Mary's children either.

3) I showed you exactly where Elisabeth calls Mary 'the mother of my Lord'. Do you think Elisabeth, being a Jew could have used the word for 'God'? I don't think so.

There's no problem with "mother of my Lord". Mary is not the Mother of God. She is the mother of Jesus. There is an important distinction.

Of course there is, and it's called a heresy.

4) and most importantly, what you're doing now is disagreeing with me on certain interpretations of scripture, which is fine and dandy. But what you absolutely CANNOT do from now on is claim that I don't have scriptural support, at least with respect to this topic. Let's keep that in mind going forward.

Sorry, still no scriptural support for "Mary Mother of God".

Says you.

Byblos, this isn't rocket surgery. God has always existed. How could Mary be the mother of God, if He existed before she was born? Think about it.

Oh I've thought about it plenty. Evidently you haven't since you're falling into a trap that was declared a heresy 18 centuries ago.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
By that same logic they are never mentioned as Mary's children either.

Au contraire mon frere. See this:

And this messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:8-9:
8 I have become estranged [a]from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.
9 For zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.

Deny the title and you deny the Hypostatic union. Deny the Hypostatic union and you deny the incarnation. You can protest and deny that you're doing that all you want but history proves you wrong.

Byblos, I deny the title, "Mother of God", yet I do not deny the hypostatic union. You can make of that whatever you want.

I think my beliefs are explained here, From this link:
http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/nestorianQA.htm

Catholics reading this might charge me with separating the two natures of Christ. But I have not separated the two natures of Christ. In Jesus Christ, the God nature and the human nature are united in the one Person, Jesus Christ. All I have done is distinguish His parents as the origins of His natures. God is the origin of His God nature. Mary is the origin of His human nature. Therefore, God is the Father of Jesus Christ's God nature, and Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ's human nature. In Jesus Christ, these natures are united, so that God is His Father and Mary is His mother. But Mary is not the mother of God.

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:
By that same logic they are never mentioned as Mary's children either.

Au contraire mon frere. See this:

And this messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:8-9:
8 I have become estranged [a]from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.
9 For zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.

Seriously? That prophesy can just as well be (and in fact is) used to show Mary as the new Eve Rick. Do you know who Mary as the new Eve's sons are? EVERYONE. You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Deny the title and you deny the Hypostatic union. Deny the Hypostatic union and you deny the incarnation. You can protest and deny that you're doing that all you want but history proves you wrong.

Byblos, I deny the title, "Mother of God", yet I do not deny the hypostatic union. You can make of that whatever you want.

I think my beliefs are explained here, From this link:
http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/nestorianQA.htm

Catholics reading this might charge me with separating the two natures of Christ. But I have not separated the two natures of Christ. In Jesus Christ, the God nature and the human nature are united in the one Person, Jesus Christ. All I have done is distinguish His parents as the origins of His natures. God is the origin of His God nature. Mary is the origin of His human nature. Therefore, God is the Father of Jesus Christ's God nature, and Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ's human nature. In Jesus Christ, these natures are united, so that God is His Father and Mary is His mother. But Mary is not the mother of God.

Be my guest. That's what the Nestorians did.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
Seriously? That prophesy can just as well be (and in fact is) used to show Mary as the new Eve Rick. Do you know who Mary as the new Eve's sons are? EVERYONE. You're gonna have to do a whole lot better than that.

Of course you have to interpret that as the new Eve's sons. If you interpreted it as Mary's actual children, you'd have to throw away the perpetual virgin, the immaculate conception, and that would mean no more Mary worship. Could you imagine that! Catholicism without focusing on the blessed virgin! Oh the humanity!