Catholicism Questions

[Philip]

I did not mean to be abrasive in my above post, but honest to what I can discern and have LONG studied abouth Catholicism. My wife grew up Catholic. ALL MY in-laws except her brother and his wife (they are Christians whom are no longer Catholic) are as well. I love them all. But I see the dangers in man-man doctrine perpetuated by a top-down, Scripturally unvalidated human bureacracy that has invented key teachings that contradict Scripture with religious nonsense. Now, that said, Catholics also believe many of the same things I do. Of course, other denominations have put forth human-created, unScriptural teachings as well. But JESUS is ALL we need! The Holy Spirit! Not Mary, some saint, some priest, preacher or holy whatever. Jesus!

While TECHNICALLY the term "Mother of God" would be accurate, the term is nonetheless misleading, and designed to elevate and assert Mary to be FAR more than Scripture states her to actually be. And it is this focus, reliance and elevation to make her some supposed sinless, almost God-like creature that is dangerous. MARY HAS NO POWER TO HELP MEN! Her prayers and influence are no more effective than those of any other Christian, whether in Heaven or still alive. She was but a blessed and faithful "doorway" into which God stepped into His human form. No more, no less! And that is the Mary Scripture describes. Period!

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
First off, remember that I am a Catholic so I know what WE mean when we say things.

Wait. What?

Catholic? And to think I voted for you to become a moderator!

Talk about not knowing qualifiers beforehand!

My catholic-ninja skills border on uber-awesomeness !

[Byblos]

I did not mean to be abrasive in my above post, but honest to what I can discern and have LONG studied abouth Catholicism. My wife grew up Catholic. ALL MY in-laws except her brother and his wife (they are Christians whom are no longer Catholic) are as well. I love them all. But I see the dangers in man-man doctrine perpetuated by a top-down, Scripturally unvalidated human bureacracy that has invented key teachings that contradict Scripture with religious nonsense. Now, that said, Catholics also believe many of the same things I do. Of course, other denominations have put forth human-created, unScriptural teachings as well. But JESUS is ALL we need! The Holy Spirit! Not Mary, some saint, some priest, preacher or holy whatever. Jesus!

While TECHNICALLY the term "Mother of God" would be accurate, the term is nonetheless misleading, and designed to elevate and assert Mary to be FAR more than Scripture states her to actually be. And it is this focus, reliance and elevation to make her some supposed sinless, almost God-like creature that is dangerous. MARY HAS NO POWER TO HELP MEN! Her prayers and influence are no more effective than those of any other Christian, whether in Heaven or still alive. She was but a blessed and faithful "doorway" into which God stepped into His human form. No more, no less! And that is the Mary Scripture describes. Period!

Your vitriol aside, and irrespective of how the doctrine is perceived by non-Catholics, or even used by Catholics, the essence of the Marian doctrine is two-fold and no more:

1) To combat heresies against the deity of Christ (and by extension the trinity)
2) To bring people closer to her son, for the doctrine is Christ-centered not Mary-centered

With all due respect, that and only that, is the essence of the doctrine. Is it abused and misunderstood? Of course, no doubt. But that's not an indictment of the doctrine itself but with education (lack of, rather). We can blame the church all we want but at some point we need to take personal responsibility for our lack of knowledge.

Bottom line is if one gives assent to the notion (rightly) of 'Mary mother of God' and to the notion (rightly or wrongly) of the communion of the saints, then everything else simply falls into place. All this nonsense about 'praying to Mary and the saints' and Jesus is the sole mediator (as if Catholics somehow deny that ) is just that, nonsense. At the heart of the communion of the saints (and at the center of that is Mary) is intercessory prayers, nothing less, nothing more.

[Philip]

Byblos: All this nonsense about 'praying to Mary and the saints' and Jesus is the sole mediator (as if Catholics somehow deny that ) is just that, nonsense. At the heart of the communion of the saints (and at the center of that is Mary) is intercessory prayers, nothing less, nothing more.

What do you mean by stating that Mary is at the heart of the communion of the saints and intercessory prayer?

Byblos, what you seem to assert is NOT what is practiced or perceived by a huge percentage of Catholics.

So, would you say this is a fair statement: That Mary had NO role in our salvation, OTHER THAN how God chose her to step into the world through - no more, no less? Are Mary's intercessory prayers ANY more important or effective than that of ANY other Christian, in Heaven or still alive? Is she a "co-Redeemtrix" - and what does that actually mean? WAS she a perpetual virgin? Did she not have children, both male and female, besides Jesus? Upon what basis, and so are the New Testament passages indicating otherwise false or somehow misunderstood? Was Mary sinless? Was Mary raptured up to Heaven? Are we to beseech Mary or any other saint above any other Christian, dead or alive, to pray for us?

[Byblos]

Byblos: All this nonsense about 'praying to Mary and the saints' and Jesus is the sole mediator (as if Catholics somehow deny that ) is just that, nonsense. At the heart of the communion of the saints (and at the center of that is Mary) is intercessory prayers, nothing less, nothing more.

What do you mean by stating that Mary is at the heart of the communion of the saints and intercessory prayer?

I mean her prominent role as the Mother of God among the saints, nothing more.

Byblos, what you seem to assert is NOT what is practiced or perceived by a huge percentage of Catholics.

That's exactly what I stated, that the doctrine is quite possibly misunderstood and largely abused. But once again, that's not an indictment on the doctrine itself but on us as practitioners.

So, would you say this is a fair statement: That Mary had NO role in our salvation, OTHER THAN how God chose her to step into the world through - no more, no less?

The only role Mary plays in our salvation is to bring us closer to her Son (who IS the sole mediator in salvific matters) through her intercessory prayers. That's how I've always understood her role and how it shapes my life as a Catholic.

Are Mary's intercessory prayers ANY more important or effective than that of ANY other Christian, in Heaven or still alive?

Are your mother's prayers more important than a stranger's? Is her influence on you more efficacious than the influence of strangers on you? You tell me.

Is she a "co-Redeemtrix" - and what does that actually mean?

In the sense that she brings people closer to Christ and to their salvation, then yes.

WAS she a perpetual virgin? Did she not have children, both male and female, besides Jesus?

That's a myth, there is no clear indication that Mary had other children. The word used for 'brother' in greek is the same one used for 'cousin'. And even if they were 'brothers', they could have been Jospeh's children from a previous marriage.

Upon what basis, and so are the New Testament passages indicating otherwise false or somehow misunderstood?

I have no idea what that means.

Was Mary sinless?

Yes, but that doesn't mean she wasn't in need of salvation like everyone else. It is believed Mary was selected to be the mother of God and therefore saved before her birth.

Was Mary raptured up to Heaven?

That's what the church believes and teaches. I give assent to it because there is no proof otherwise. It makes not one of bit of difference otherwise. It's not like it didn't happen before.

Are we to beseech Mary or any other saint above any other Christian, dead or alive, to pray for us?

Again, I don't know what that means. We ask for intercessory prayers from all the living, here or in heaven. Those in heaven may (or may not, we simply don't know) have a closer connection, particularly Mary's special relationship with her Son. Is it possible their intercessory prayers (in heaven) are more efficacious than ours? Of course. Do I put any more stock in it than just that? That's just silly.

[RickD]

I think Storyteller got more than she bargained for when she started this thread.

[RickD]

Byblos,

I see what you and Jac are saying. Take the doctrine of Theotokos as it is, on its own. For the sake of what it is, the discussion of all other Marian doctrine is irrelevant.

But I'm just not convinced that we can do that. Why was the doctrine formed? Some say it was to go against Nestorius and his doctrine Christotokos, which he meant to separate Christ's two natures.

Others say nestorius was falsely accused, and that wasn't even what he said nor believed. Which would then imply that there was another reason that the doctrine Theotokos was formed. And seeing who formed it, and where they have taken it, then I can't help but leave open the possibility that there may be another reason it was formed.

I looked at what I could regarding this, for quite a while last night. I still haven't come to any conclusion.

I think if I ever say, "Mother of God", I'll just be sure to use qualifiers.

[RickD]

Nestorian Theology, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

From the link:

Nestorius maintained that Mary should be called Christotokos ("bearer/mother of Christ"), not Theotokos, since he considered the former to more accurately represent Mary's relationship to Jesus.

[Byblos]

Byblos,

I see what you and Jac are saying. Take the doctrine of Theotokos as it is, on its own. For the sake of what it is, the discussion of all other Marian doctrine is irrelevant.

But I'm just not convinced that we can do that. Why was the doctrine formed? Some say it was to go against Nestorius and his doctrine Christotokos, which he meant to separate Christ's two natures.

Others say nestorius was falsely accused, and that wasn't even what he said nor believed. Which would then imply that there was another reason that the doctrine Theotokos was formed. And seeing who formed it, and where they have taken it, then I can't help but leave open the possibility that there may be another reason it was formed.

I looked at what I could regarding this, for quite a while last night. I still haven't come to any conclusion.

I think if I ever say, "Mother of God", I'll just be sure to use qualifiers.

It makes no difference what Nestorius actually believed. The fact is that nestorianism, the movement that denied Christ's one-personhood with two natures, was well established and needed to be suppressed, and it was.

I understand your hesitation Rick, I really do. I've spent countless years discussing Catholicism with non-Catholics and I know the arguments and their counters. As Jac said, Mary mother of God ought not be an issue at all because it is the only logical conclusion to avoid all kinds of theological heresies and philosophical pitfalls. The only time your uneasiness might be justified is if you couple Mother of God with communion of the saints. Then I'll tell you what I told Story, proceed at your own peril.

[RickD]

So you're saying nestorianism is similar to Calvinism, in the sense that who they were named after, might not have even believed what they actually are/were?

Anyways, after looking over the Nestorian theology link I put up, do you still think Nestorianism denied Christ's one personhood with two natures? edit-See B. here.

[Byblos]

So you're saying nestorianism is similar to Calvinism, in the sense that who they were named after, might not have even believed what they actually are/were?

Anyways, after looking over the Nestorian theology link I put up, do you still think Nestorianism denied Christ's one personhood with two natures? edit-See B. here.

The Great Heresies.

[RickD]

So you're saying nestorianism is similar to Calvinism, in the sense that who they were named after, might not have even believed what they actually are/were?

Anyways, after looking over the Nestorian theology link I put up, do you still think Nestorianism denied Christ's one personhood with two natures? edit-See B. here.

The Great Heresies.

Interesting. From your link:

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

It seems like the underlined from your Catholic link disagrees with the Nestorian Theology link I posted. From the Nestorian Theology link, here's what it says about what Nestorian believed:

Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople in 428. He came from the Antioch school and was taught theology there by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He opposed a relatively new theological and devotional slogan Theotokos - affirming that Mary was the "God-bearer" or "Mother of God." Nestorius was concerned with the thought that God might be seen to have had a new beginning of some kind, or that he suffered or died. None of these things could happen to the infinite God. Therefore, instead of a God-man, he taught that there was the Logos and the "man who was assumed." He favored the term "Christ-bearer" (Christotokos) as a summary of Mary's role, or perhaps that she should be called both "God-bearer" and "Man-bearer" to emphasize Christ's dual natures. He was accused of teaching a double personality of Christ. Two natures, and two persons. He denied the charge, but the term Nestorianism has always been linked with such a teaching.

[Byblos]

From the last paragraph:

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply ...

[Jac3510]

Just want to affirm that Byblos is absolutely correct--and every Protestant should give assent--on what he is saying about Mary with respect to his two points about the essence of the doctrine. Protestants ought to regard her as the mother of God--to deny that is to be either Nestorian (and this regardless of whether the man Nestorius was a Nestorian (cf the debate about whether Calvin was a Calvinist in the sense of adhering to the TULIP) or some form of Arian, and that whether you intend it or not or know it or not--and Protestants ought to affirm the communion of the saints (and they do, whether they intend it or not or know it or not). Protestants ought NOT critique the Marian doctrine on the basis of its abuses but rather on the basis of the formal teaching.

Protestants are (logically) free to disagree with those aspects of the Marian doctrines that are derived from tradition--specifically here I have in mind:

1. The assumption of Mary
2. The immaculate conception of Mary (if I hear one more Prot apply this to Jesus, I'll cry)
3. The sinlessness of Mary
4. The perpetual virginity of Mary

All four of those, while required for Catholic faith (and I say if you are a Catholic that you, in fact, must believe these or else you contradict the fundamental belief of what it means to be a Catholic, such that you have become self-refuting), can be freely rejected by the Protestant. What CANNOT be (logically) rejected by the Protestant (who accepts the authority of Scripture) is, again, the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God and that Mary does (or at least can) pray for believers on earth and that her prayers do (or at least can) draw people closer to Christ in a unique way.

[Byblos]

Just want to affirm that Byblos is absolutely correct--and every Protestant should give assent--on what he is saying about Mary with respect to his two points about the essence of the doctrine. Protestants ought to regard her as the mother of God--to deny that is to be either Nestorian (and this regardless of whether the man Nestorius was a Nestorian (cf the debate about whether Calvin was a Calvinist in the sense of adhering to the TULIP) or some form of Arian, and that whether you intend it or not or know it or not--and Protestants ought to affirm the communion of the saints (and they do, whether they intend it or not or know it or not). Protestants ought NOT critique the Marian doctrine on the basis of its abuses but rather on the basis of the formal teaching.

Protestants are (logically) free to disagree with those aspects of the Marian doctrines that are derived from tradition--specifically here I have in mind:

1. The assumption of Mary
2. The immaculate conception of Mary (if I hear one more Prot apply this to Jesus, I'll cry)
3. The sinlessness of Mary
4. The perpetual virginity of Mary

All four of those, while required for Catholic faith (and I say if you are a Catholic that you, in fact, must believe these or else you contradict the fundamental belief of what it means to be a Catholic, such that you have become self-refuting), can be freely rejected by the Protestant. What CANNOT be (logically) rejected by the Protestant (who accepts the authority of Scripture) is, again, the doctrine that Mary is the Mother of God and that Mary does (or at least can) pray for believers on earth and that her prayers do (or at least can) draw people closer to Christ in a unique way.

Wow. I'm absolutely blown away Jac. To think where we were a decade ago and where we are now, just mind boggling. I know you well enough to know you put a tremendous amount of effort as well as pride in studying subjects and formulating your positions. If you will indulge me the fantasy of having a tiny influence on the above stance.