Catholicism Questions

[RickD]

Just curious, is there a doctrine that shows both of Christ's natures? Theotokos seems to leave out his humanity. His humanity is equally as important as far as the atonement.

Of course, the hypostatic union.

Yes, of course. I'll stick with that one then, and just leave Mary out of it.

[Byblos]

Well I think we're finally making headway, how about this then: Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ who is both God and man. Would you affirm that at least?

Of course. I've already said as much in different words. When you asked me what I'd tell a Muslim about who Mary is, that's what I meant when I said, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.

I could go on further breaking it down into smaller parts to get to the logical conclusion that Mary is the mother of God but you know what Rick, I think you can work that out on your own. I am quite content leaving it right here as I don't see major differences in our respective positions. It's just a matter of semantics and refinement.

[RickD]

Well I think we're finally making headway, how about this then: Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ who is both God and man. Would you affirm that at least?

Of course. I've already said as much in different words. When you asked me what I'd tell a Muslim about who Mary is, that's what I meant when I said, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.

I could go on further breaking it down into smaller parts to get to the logical conclusion that Mary is the mother of God but you know what Rick, I think you can work that out on your own. I am quite content leaving it right here as I don't see major differences in our respective positions. It's just a matter of semantics and refinement.

I think we are making headway. Maybe at least part of what bothers me about Theotokos is that it leaves out his humanity. Maybe Nestorius was on the right track, when he was looking for a term that confirmed both natures.

[Byblos]

Well I think we're finally making headway, how about this then: Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ who is both God and man. Would you affirm that at least?

Of course. I've already said as much in different words. When you asked me what I'd tell a Muslim about who Mary is, that's what I meant when I said, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.

I could go on further breaking it down into smaller parts to get to the logical conclusion that Mary is the mother of God but you know what Rick, I think you can work that out on your own. I am quite content leaving it right here as I don't see major differences in our respective positions. It's just a matter of semantics and refinement.

I think we are making headway. Maybe at least part of what bothers me about Theotokos is that it leaves out his humanity. Maybe Nestorius was on the right track, when he was looking for a term that confirmed both natures.

Then as a final conclusion may I suggest the term TheoChristotokos.

[RickD]

Well I think we're finally making headway, how about this then: Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ who is both God and man. Would you affirm that at least?

Of course. I've already said as much in different words. When you asked me what I'd tell a Muslim about who Mary is, that's what I meant when I said, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.

I could go on further breaking it down into smaller parts to get to the logical conclusion that Mary is the mother of God but you know what Rick, I think you can work that out on your own. I am quite content leaving it right here as I don't see major differences in our respective positions. It's just a matter of semantics and refinement.

I think we are making headway. Maybe at least part of what bothers me about Theotokos is that it leaves out his humanity. Maybe Nestorius was on the right track, when he was looking for a term that confirmed both natures.

Then as a final conclusion may I suggest the term TheoChristotokos.

I'm good with that. Now go tell your buddies at the Vatican to make the necessary changes.

[RickD]

Byblos,

Just thought of something.

Thinking in terms of a discussion about the atonement, and why Jesus is the only one who can atone for the sins of the world, who would you say Jesus is if someone asked you?

[Philip]

What a bunch of hooey louie over semantics and what some supposed heretics did or did not believe! What MATTERS is what, TODAY, is being taught that is false and that is Scripturally supportable/validated and what is unsupportable and dangerous. Really, Annette's head is probably spinning, and she's likely unsure what is what, and what matters TODAY, and what really doesn't. It can be confusing (or perhaps, uncertain) about what people in another time did or did not believe, but that whatever supposed fallacies they may have bought into are still being used today in modern arguments, whether accurate to the past or not.

The other issue about Mary, "Mother of God," etc. - really, arguments over what is possible, and how that term could technically be applied accurately are getting rather silly. What SHOULD be discussed is what Mary WAS, IS - and very key - what she is NOT. Because this is where many false beliefs and practices concerning her are widespread. Yes, Jesus was fully God, AND fully human, and every human has a human mother. Every human has a human nature. Jesus happened to have a human nature, precisely because He was also HUMAN. I really don't see the big honkin' deal! Get to the real stuff! This "Mother of God" title, while technically correct, is being used worldwide by Catholics to implie that Mary is far more than she is. She does NOT bring us closer to Jesus. She was not a perpetual virgin. She was not sinless. She was not raptured up to Heaven. All of these Catholic "add-ons" to Scripture (or contradictions) - which, btw, one can track historically when these teachings were put forth, have one huge collective problem. They are not found in SCRIPTURE! And creative gymnastics to assert that they are doesn't make them so!

Mary's prayers are not any more important than ANY mother's prayers, or of any other Christian's. Mary is not my mother or your mother; she was Jesus' mother. The CC goes so far in the Mary stuff that they have to deny Scripture that shows her to have many children - and then they do all of these gymnastics to assert these were other children of Joseph or some such nonsense. If you look at the historical track record, you can see when these teachings did not exist, and then when they began to take hold. But the biggest issue, in my mind, concerning Mary, is the wrongful focus on her and appealing to her, as opposed to Jesus, and making her out to have abilities and importance, to US, like no other Christian. Assigning her supposed abilities and importance that have people seeking her and whatever blessings she might bring through her special favor with God or whatever. Totally unsupported by Scripture, but radically supported by the traditions of the CC.

Really, if what I have concerns about above, are silly, that this Mary obsession, beseeching The Virgin, other saints, etc., believing her intercessions for us are somehow more important than those of any other Christians - well, then, no big deal. If that were the case, I could care less. But I think these things are very harmful, and transfers the focus and faith of millions to a human being as opposed to Jesus, or at least IN ADDITION TO Him. Yes, millions pray to saints and The Virgin. Why? Is that good or bad? Does the Pope or ANY man have the right to make new doctrine? Yes or no? To me, these are what matter. What's the truth about them? And believing a man or some church has the authority to make new pronouncements of practice, belief and faith - that is SCARY bad - how easy millions are deluded. But that is exactly what the CC teaches. And the present Pope is very close to asserting that Scripture should be flexible and evolve with the times - WATCH Him!

[Jac3510]

Well I think we're finally making headway, how about this then: Mary is the mother of the person, Jesus Christ who is both God and man. Would you affirm that at least?

Of course. I've already said as much in different words. When you asked me what I'd tell a Muslim about who Mary is, that's what I meant when I said, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.

I could go on further breaking it down into smaller parts to get to the logical conclusion that Mary is the mother of God but you know what Rick, I think you can work that out on your own. I am quite content leaving it right here as I don't see major differences in our respective positions. It's just a matter of semantics and refinement.

But the problem is not the Rick does not affirm the hypostatic union properly stated. I know he does. No one questions that. The problem is that he is denying that Mary is the mother of God. Why is that a problem? Because that position logically entails something that Rick denies, insofar as it logically entails either that Jesus is not God or else it entails that Jesus is two persons, one God whom Mary did not give birth to and one man whom Mary did give birth to. Now, both views are wrong on very deep levels. Rick does not get to affirm an error because he explicitly denies the conclusion of that error. That is called the taxicab fallacy. (Google it, Rick!)

I want to go back to the idea that Mary gives birth to the human nature of God. Rick says that we can say that in this one case because this one case is so special. I deny that. On that view, you can justify anything and say, "Well, logic doesn't apply in this case, because it's so special." You can justify Arianism. In fact, Rick, let me use that as an example.

I say, "Jesus is a created being."
You say, "No, He is not. He is God."
Me, "Yes, I agree. He's God."
You, "You cannot affirm both. If Jesus is created, He is not God."
Me, "But in this case it is different. The incarnation never happened before and it will never happen again."
You, "What does that have to do with anything?
Me, "Because since it never happened, then we can say things that are illogical otherwise."

Now, obviously, you wouldn't put the your statement as blunt as that last line, but that's what your statement boils down to. So I expect that you agree that the uniqueness of the incarnation does not give us permission to make illogical statements. So I have to conclude that you don't understand sufficiently what a nature is as compared to a person, because if you did, you could not suggest that Mary was the mother of Jesus' human nature! I'll focus on that.

So why can't we say that. Because, as we well know, women are mothers of persons, not mothers of natures. If you think about that much, you'll see it is obviously true. Mary was not the mother of humanity, but of this particular person. All persons are body/soul composites, which is why we give birth to persons (who have bodies--obviously, you cannot give birth to that which has no body!). And from there, it is straightforward. If you say that Mary was not the mother of God, then at best you are saying that Mary was not the mother of Jesus' divine nature. But we've seen that you don't give birth to natures but to persons. Therefore, you are saying that Mary was not the mother of Jesus the Divine Person, but that she was the mother of Jesus the human person. And there you have it, two persons.

Now, to be charitable, what I think you are TRYING to say is that Mary did not originate the divine nature. And that is fine. Saying Mary is the Mother of God is not saying that she originated the divine nature. That's not theotokos. That would be heresy itself! But you have to remember that "mother" does not mean "the one who originated the human nature." Mothers don't originate natures. Carry and birth persons. Go back to the meaning of nature, and human nature in particular. Mary couldn't even originate the human nature of Christ because no human originates NATURES. We originate this person, and a person by definition is a nature with a body (a body/soul composite).

So what did Mary originate if not a human nature? Obviously, a human person. And that human person was also a divine person. But Mary was the mother of the person--we can't say she was the mother part of the person. That wouldn't even make sense. We say she was the mother of the person Himself. Since that Person is God (in virtue of His divine nature), then she is both the mother of a man and the mother of a god; and since there is only one God (that is, since God is just His nature), then she was also the mother of God.

I could say more, but let me stop here. Again, the important thing for now is to recognize that women do not give birth to natures--nor can they--but they give birth to persons. If we can't agree on that, then we won't be able to move forward.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
I want to go back to the idea that Mary gives birth to the human nature of God

I never said that. I think you misread me, which was probably because I wasn't specific enough. I meant that Mary is "responsible", I guess genetically, for only the human nature of Christ. It's pretty obvious, yes even to me, that she gave birth to the person, Jesus Christ. Who again, is God and man.

[IceMobster]

And God is not a title. It is a term that signifies essence. And that is exactly why the syllogism not only works, but why it MUST work. To deny that is much worse than Nestorianism. Believe it or not, it actually (necessarily) leads to atheism.

Wait, I didn't get it. What exactly leads to atheism? Can you explain, please?

I agree with Philip. So much unnecessary spam and walls of text on Nestorianism when we all know what would be heretical to say concerning Jesus' natures and what would not.

[Byblos]

What a bunch of hooey louie over semantics and what some supposed heretics did or did not believe! What MATTERS is what, TODAY, is being taught that is false and that is Scripturally supportable/validated and what is unsupportable and dangerous. Really, Annette's head is probably spinning, and she's likely unsure what is what, and what matters TODAY, and what really doesn't. It can be confusing (or perhaps, uncertain) about what people in another time did or did not believe, but that whatever supposed fallacies they may have bought into are still being used today in modern arguments, whether accurate to the past or not.

The other issue about Mary, "Mother of God," etc. - really, arguments over what is possible, and how that term could technically be applied accurately are getting rather silly. What SHOULD be discussed is what Mary WAS, IS - and very key - what she is NOT. Because this is where many false beliefs and practices concerning her are widespread. Yes, Jesus was fully God, AND fully human, and every human has a human mother. Every human has a human nature. Jesus happened to have a human nature, precisely because He was also HUMAN. I really don't see the big honkin' deal! Get to the real stuff! This "Mother of God" title, while technically correct, is being used worldwide by Catholics to implie that Mary is far more than she is. She does NOT bring us closer to Jesus. She was not a perpetual virgin. She was not sinless. She was not raptured up to Heaven. All of these Catholic "add-ons" to Scripture (or contradictions) - which, btw, one can track historically when these teachings were put forth, have one huge collective problem. They are not found in SCRIPTURE! And creative gymnastics to assert that they are doesn't make them so!

Mary's prayers are not any more important than ANY mother's prayers, or of any other Christian's. Mary is not my mother or your mother; she was Jesus' mother. The CC goes so far in the Mary stuff that they have to deny Scripture that shows her to have many children - and then they do all of these gymnastics to assert these were other children of Joseph or some such nonsense. If you look at the historical track record, you can see when these teachings did not exist, and then when they began to take hold. But the biggest issue, in my mind, concerning Mary, is the wrongful focus on her and appealing to her, as opposed to Jesus, and making her out to have abilities and importance, to US, like no other Christian. Assigning her supposed abilities and importance that have people seeking her and whatever blessings she might bring through her special favor with God or whatever. Totally unsupported by Scripture, but radically supported by the traditions of the CC.

Really, if what I have concerns about above, are silly, that this Mary obsession, beseeching The Virgin, other saints, etc., believing her intercessions for us are somehow more important than those of any other Christians - well, then, no big deal. If that were the case, I could care less. But I think these things are very harmful, and transfers the focus and faith of millions to a human being as opposed to Jesus, or at least IN ADDITION TO Him. Yes, millions pray to saints and The Virgin. Why? Is that good or bad? Does the Pope or ANY man have the right to make new doctrine? Yes or no? To me, these are what matter. What's the truth about them? And believing a man or some church has the authority to make new pronouncements of practice, belief and faith - that is SCARY bad - how easy millions are deluded. But that is exactly what the CC teaches. And the present Pope is very close to asserting that Scripture should be flexible and evolve with the times - WATCH Him!

I sense you're coming around Philip.

[Byblos]

Byblos,

Just thought of something.

Thinking in terms of a discussion about the atonement, and why Jesus is the only one who can atone for the sins of the world, who would you say Jesus is if someone asked you?

Not sure where you're going with this Rick but I have a feeling it's going to end up with a discussion on assurance. To answer your question though, my view of Jesus is no different than traditional orthodox Christianity as outlined by the Nicene creed.

[RickD]

Byblos,

Just thought of something.

Thinking in terms of a discussion about the atonement, and why Jesus is the only one who can atone for the sins of the world, who would you say Jesus is if someone asked you?

Not sure where you're going with this Rick but I have a feeling it's going to end up with a discussion on assurance. To answer your question though, my view of Jesus is no different than traditional orthodox Christianity as outlined by the Nicene creed.

No, not assurance. That has nothing to do with this. It has to do with Theotokos. I know what your view is. I want you to say what you'd tell someone if you were to answer the question. It's leading somewhere. It's not earth shattering. I just want to see something about the doctrine.

[Jac3510]

Jac wrote:
I want to go back to the idea that Mary gives birth to the human nature of God

I never said that. I think you misread me, which was probably because I wasn't specific enough. I meant that Mary is "responsible", I guess genetically, for only the human nature of Christ. It's pretty obvious, yes even to me, that she gave birth to the person, Jesus Christ. Who again, is God and man.

That's fine. She's obviously not responsible for the deity of Christ or for His divine nature. That isn't what the theotokos says. But just look at your own words. If she gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, then then since the person is God (in virtue of His divine nature), then she is God's mother. There's just no getting away from it, Rick.

Wait, I didn't get it. What exactly leads to atheism? Can you explain, please?

Any view that implies parts in God is necessarily atheistic, because any "God" with parts is not, by nature and definition, God. So to say that the term "God" doesn't refer to an essence but instead just to a particular being, then you are saying that this being called "God" is composed of essence and existence (and, in this case, for technical reasons, also of form and matter). Such composition means that you are not talking about God at all, and since "God" would be the subject, then you are literally saying that there is no being that is identical with Being Itself. And since theism requires the idea that God is Being Itself, then that position says that no God exists. It is, in a word, atheistic. Now, I packed a LOT into a very tight space there, so if you need that expanded, let me know.

I agree with Philip. So much unnecessary spam and walls of text on Nestorianism when we all know what would be heretical to say concerning Jesus' natures and what would not.

But it is very necessary. Ignore for a moment Rick's affirmation of the hypostatic union. Suppose he is right that Mary is not the mother of God. Then here are the necessary inferences. Either

1. Mary is not the mother of God because her son Jesus is not God. Instead, Jesus is just a human. This, though, is a serious heresy.
2. Mary is not the mother of God because her son Jesus is neither God nor man, but something that is half-god/half-man (that is, Jesus is a demi-God). This, though, is a serious heresy.
3. Mary is not the mother of God because she is the mother of the human "part" of Jesus but not the divine "part." But since we give birth to persons and not parts, then this is to say that the human part is a person (again, to be very clear, that must be said on this view because Mary gave birth to a person!); and so by the same logic, the divine part would also be a person. And since the divine part is a person and the human part is a person, then either these two persons are identical (which would make Mary the mother of God again) or else they are not identical and are thus distinguished by the fact that Mary gave birth to one and not to the other. And thus you have two persons in Christ, not one, which is a serious error.

So I hope you can see that this is not useless walls of text. We're talking about the necessary conclusion of a theological idea that Rick is putting forward. And it is our job to take that sort of stuff very seriously.

[abelcainsbrother]

John 1:18