Catholicism Questions

[RickD]

Pretty good link showing differing views on Theotokos, and Mother of God.
http://www.academia.edu/4167342/THEOTOK ... T_THEOLOGY

[crochet1949]

Your link wouldn't go through, sorry .

[crochet1949]

What / Who gives the RCC authority to change/ modify any of GOD's Word. GOD has not changed His mind about His Word since He's given it to us through the Holy Spirit.

Seriously what the heck are you talking about? Nothing we talked about is decidedly Catholic, it's purely a logical argument. Sheesh, you and phil need to chill with your catholophobia.

This is Catholicism questions , right? So I'm questioning. Seems logical to Me.

[abelcainsbrother]

Your link wouldn't go through, sorry .

It worked for me.What I have problems with on here is when somebody embeds a video but does not give a link.I cannot watch it,which is why I always just give a link.

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:

I would have no problem saying that Mary is the Mother of God and if necessary proceed to defend the case exactly as I and Jac have been doing.

Ok. But I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that while you'd say Mary is the Mother of God, isn't there more to it? Let's see if I can explain.

Someone asks you who Mary is. You say she's the Mother of God. The next question would probably be along the lines of, "Whoa! Mother of God? I thought God was eternal, how could God have a Mother?"

Then you'd have to qualify what you mean, right?

It seems like maybe there should be another term which shows Mary was the mother of Jesus who is fully God, and fully man.

It just seems to be confusing an already difficult thing for people to grasp. Some say the incarnation is even more difficult to grasp than the Trinity.

That's at least part of the issue I'm trying to work out.

Mary bore a child. A child is person. To state Mary bore a person or Mary is the mother of Jesus is utterly uncontroversial, it does not require explaining. Women have been doing that for ages. When the child has a second nature, i.e. God the Son, it is perfectly fitting to then state Mary is the mother of God. This last one requires explaining through the incarnation and the hypostatic union. As I stated, I would have no problem whatsoever with stating Mary is the mother of Jesus who is one person with two natures, one divine and one human, and since the divine nature is one with the triune ... etc etc. It's too long but it conveys the same message. Mother of God is more fitting and more concise and what it lacks (your words) is uncontroversial and implied (she bore a son who is a person), it does not require restating or an explanation.

[Byblos]

What / Who gives the RCC authority to change/ modify any of GOD's Word. GOD has not changed His mind about His Word since He's given it to us through the Holy Spirit.

Seriously what the heck are you talking about? Nothing we talked about is decidedly Catholic, it's purely a logical argument. Sheesh, you and phil need to chill with your catholophobia.

This is Catholicism questions , right? So I'm questioning. Seems logical to Me.

It'd be nice if you were questioning, I'd be more than happy to answer questions. Can you repeat them for me?

[Byblos]

Byblos: Seriously what the heck are you talking about? Nothing we talked about is decidedly Catholic, it's purely a logical argument. Sheesh, you and phil need to chill with your catholophobia.

Um, Byblos knows very well that some of the key things I have brought up, teachings which the CC asserts to be valid, are not found in Scripture AND they originated within the hierarchy of the church and its popes. NO, I am not Catholic-phobic, but I am very much against some of the CC's key teachings. But I also agree with much of what Catholics believe. But those few areas I find problematic are VERY problematic, even dangerous. A further problem is that many Catholics consider themselves Christians merely because they are Catholic, or because they were baptized at whatever days old as babies. Of course, this is no different than many Protestants whom have attended church all of their lives, but yet are not Christians.

Further, I would say that the CC definitely teaches a "Jesus-plus" requirement for salvation - which is the sacrament of BAPTISM: “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude . . . ," (CCC 1257).

And, I'm not in any way picking on ONLY the Catholic Church, but on any Christian-asserting organization that teaches things that either are not clearly found in Scripture or that are in serious conflict or outright contradictions as to what can be found in Scripture. And ANY organization claiming the authority to add or subtract teachings to Scripture, or claiming it to be a further and authorized (by God) illuminations not found in Scripture - I'd have the very same problems. Do you not realize that when the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal (313), and further when he began to support it, what did he do but promote many former bureaucrats into the offices of the State. By doing so, He controlled the church of Rome, its officers, and MONIES incurred. So, in this way, while there were certainly many true Christians involved with the Church, many others were appointed by the state, to the point that they became inseparable entities and highly political. And thus, with such political appointments to key positions of church leadership, the corruption of the state entered the church of Rome.

While Christianity became embraced by Constantine in 313, let's not forget that he also legalized other religious groups and as late as 321 he was still encouraging and validating sun worship. In fact, (per Wikipedia) "when he dedicated the new capital of Constantinople, which became the seat of Byzantine Christianity for a millennium, he did so wearing the Apollonian sun-rayed Diadem; no Christian symbols were present at this dedication." So, it is very doubtful that this (at least former) pagan was a Christian, and didn't view adopting/co-opting Christianity as an opportunity to the state. Later, as the Church claimed authority to add teachings to what could already be found in Scripture, the danger for false doctrine grew exponentially. This idea had strongly taken hold, especially since the period of the Counter Reformation, and culminated in (1869) the assertion of "Papal Infallibility": The "dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."" Now, how could this "infallibility" be true, as popes had long contradicted each others' teachings AND those found in Scripture?

Do people not understand the grave danger when a giant organization teaches that a mortal man, post the Apostolic era, is considered infallible in what he asserts???!!! Do people not realize that the politics originally driving church appointments were made by former (and likely, STILL) pagans, of which many were simply political/bureaucratic additions made by politicians - and absolutely RUTHLESS ones, as the empire and her conquests spread? When you look at those this supposed "unbroken line from the Apostle Peter" did and taught - one should be extremely wary of how this supposedly "Jesus-mandated" authority was wielded, what has been taught, and the great corruption of popes down through the ages. Thus, there were many examples of church corruption as to why Martin Luther rebelled - purgatory, indulgences, etc. Is it any wonder that the CC once owned one-third of the land in Europe - the continent's largest land owner. Of course, Martin Luther was no saint, himself!

I think you forgot the bathtub, I only saw the sink being hurled.

This is Story's thread, if she wants to discuss or question any of this (here or privately) I'm sure she will ask. I've made it a point to not debate anything Catholic on here for a reason. There are a few who know exactly where I stand with many of the issues as we've discussed them ad infinitum over the years. There's nothing you can bring that I haven't seen a zillion times.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:

I would have no problem saying that Mary is the Mother of God and if necessary proceed to defend the case exactly as I and Jac have been doing.

Ok. But I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that while you'd say Mary is the Mother of God, isn't there more to it? Let's see if I can explain.

Someone asks you who Mary is. You say she's the Mother of God. The next question would probably be along the lines of, "Whoa! Mother of God? I thought God was eternal, how could God have a Mother?"

Then you'd have to qualify what you mean, right?

It seems like maybe there should be another term which shows Mary was the mother of Jesus who is fully God, and fully man.

It just seems to be confusing an already difficult thing for people to grasp. Some say the incarnation is even more difficult to grasp than the Trinity.

That's at least part of the issue I'm trying to work out.

Mary bore a child. A child is person. To state Mary bore a person or Mary is the mother of Jesus is utterly uncontroversial, it does not require explaining. Women have been doing that for ages. When the child has a second nature, i.e. God the Son, it is perfectly fitting to then state Mary is the mother of God. This last one requires explaining through the incarnation and the hypostatic union. As I stated, I would have no problem whatsoever with stating Mary is the mother of Jesus who is one person with two natures, one divine and one human, and since the divine nature is one with the triune ... etc etc. It's too long but it conveys the same message. Mother of God is more fitting and more concise and what it lacks (your words) is uncontroversial and implied (she bore a son who is a person), it does not require restating or an explanation.

Thanks Byblos.

So, let me try to understand clearly. To you, The term "Mother of God" entails all of that? Christ's divinity, and his humanity, one person with two natures? You get all that from "Mother of God"?

[crochet1949]

Okay , Byblos -- Who / What is the sole authority for the CC?

[Byblos]

Mary bore a child. A child is person. To state Mary bore a person or Mary is the mother of Jesus is utterly uncontroversial, it does not require explaining. Women have been doing that for ages. When the child has a second nature, i.e. God the Son, it is perfectly fitting to then state Mary is the mother of God. This last one requires explaining through the incarnation and the hypostatic union. As I stated, I would have no problem whatsoever with stating Mary is the mother of Jesus who is one person with two natures, one divine and one human, and since the divine nature is one with the triune ... etc etc. It's too long but it conveys the same message. Mother of God is more fitting and more concise and what it lacks (your words) is uncontroversial and implied (she bore a son who is a person), it does not require restating or an explanation.

Thanks Byblos.

So, let me try to understand clearly. To you, The term "Mother of God" entails all of that? Christ's divinity, and his humanity, one person with two natures? You get all that from "Mother of God"?

Absolutely. Simply because that's what being a mother is, it entails giving birth to a person.

[Byblos]

Okay , Byblos -- Who / What is the sole authority for the CC?

The Holy Spirit.

[RickD]

Okay , Byblos -- Who / What is the sole authority for the CC?

Crochet,

Please start another thread, if you want to discuss that. I'd like to keep this thread on the topic(s) that storyteller wants to discuss. She wanted to create this thread for some questions she wants answered.

Thanks

[RickD]

Byblos and Jac,

First I ask you not to crucify me for this question. It just goes to show my lack of knowledge of Greek. And I'm just thinking out loud as I go along.

To me, Theotokos doesn't do justice to who Christ is. Why couldn't a term like Logostokos have been used? To me it uses Logos, or The Word, which was a familiar term showing that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, incarnate as Jesus Christ.

See what I'm getting at?

Edit---

While you're at it, could either of you tell me the history behind why Theotokos got changed from God bearer, to Mother of God?

[crochet1949]

RickD
My question was intended to ask Where the concept of Mary being the Mother of God Came from.

Storyteller wanted to know if she needed to believe That in order to be a true Catholic? There have been a variety of responses.

Your latest post about 'logostokos' would be a Good idea. And you're right -- Theotokos Doesn't do just as to who Christ is.
But, actually, Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Is that what you meant?

[RickD]

RickD
My question was intended to ask Where the concept of Mary being the Mother of God Came from.

Storyteller wanted to know if she needed to believe That in order to be a true Catholic? There have been a variety of responses.

Your latest post about 'logostokos' would be a Good idea. And you're right -- Theotokos Doesn't do just as to who Christ is.
But, actually, Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Is that what you meant?

Ok. Storyteller asked, my apologies.

And when I said that Christ is the second person of the Trinity, incarnate, that's the same as God incarnate, because all 3 persons in Trinity are God. But specifically the Son, The Logos, or the 2nd person of the Trinity is who Christ is.