How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

prodromos · Sunday at 7:31 PM

Hentenza said:
Yep. Both natures not just one.

Both natures, one person.

Hentenza · Sunday at 7:32 PM

prodromos said:
Both natures, one person.

Yes. But still two natures not just one.

prodromos · Sunday at 7:42 PM

Hentenza said:
Yes. But still two natures not just one.

Which is why Mary is mother of God. It goes without saying that her Son is man, because humans give birth to people who are human, and there were heretical beliefs that denied Christ's divinity on that basis. This is why it is important to acknowledge that Mary is the mother of God. It isn't about Mary, everyone knows she is human, it is about who Christ is.

Hentenza · Sunday at 7:49 PM

prodromos said:
Which is why Mary is mother of God. It goes without saying that her Son is man, because humans give birth to people who are human, and there were heretical beliefs that denied Christ's divinity on that basis. This is why it is important to acknowledge that Mary is the mother of God. It isn't about Mary, everyone knows she is human, it is about who Christ is.

Christ is both fully human and fully God. But the overemphasis on her being the mother of God minimizes the fact that she is the mother of a full blooded human being. After all, this was the main reason why the word became flesh so the He could be sinless and die for he sins of the world. Don’t minimize God’s plan.

prodromos · Sunday at 7:56 PM

Hentenza said:
Christ is both fully human and fully God. But the overemphasis on her being the mother of God minimizes the fact that she is the mother of a full blooded human being.

Only in the minds of Protestants who don't know better. I recommend you read "On the Incarnation" by Saint Athanasius

Hentenza said:
After all, this was the main reason why the word became flesh so the He could be sinless and die for he sins of the world. Don’t minimize God’s plan.

It was so He could die, and thus destroy death through His rising back to life. He could only do this by becoming man.

Hentenza · Sunday at 8:02 PM

prodromos said:
Only in the minds of Protestants who don't know better. I recommend you read "On the Incarnation" by Saint Athanasius

It was so He could die, and thus destroy death through His rising back to life. He could only do this by becoming man.

I don’t appreciate your insult of Protestants. Pretty arrogant of you. Tell me brother, when did Jesus emptied Himself and become man?

Here is the scripture.

“who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2‬:‭6‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Philippians 2:6-8 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me | New American Standard Bible -

who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me

bible.com

I dont care about the uninspired words of Athanasius. His perspective is his opinion and not inspired scripture.

boughtwithaprice · Sunday at 8:10 PM

Amo2 said:
Yes that is true. Which is why I have Lexicons and dictionaries of the original languages for examination upon unclear issues. Nevertheless, translations have of course been highly contested, which is why many bibles were within the papacies forbidden books lists. As though educated adults need to be told which is right or wrong, as though they were not capable of figuring this out for themselves, therefore being forbidden to read and decide for themselves. For more than just a little while, actually being punished with penalties up to torture and death. by supposedly other "Christians".

That is the narrative, but the facts differ.

Hard to be capable of figuring it out when a large portion of the population was illiterate.

Translations were being written deliberately to deny established dogma which had served the Church for over a millennia and still serve the Church today.
The translators were not making intellectual objections to be examined, that would be the humble path
Instead the translators deliberately wrote to provoke rebellion. They used an appeal to human nature to entice an illiterate generation unable to defend itself. Start a rumor that the Chruch is hiding things and deceiving people and the adage is demonstrated where a lie circles the globe seven times before the truth has time to tie its shoes.
It is human nature to rebel and difficult to remain humble. We have only to look at the counterculture of the 1960s to see how easily children can be convinced to rebel against their parents, and the rebellion is ongoing toward society. This is not godly behavior
God behaves according to the principle of Sabbath. God creates, then He rests. God builds the house and they labor in vain that claim to build another or reform by human hands what God has wrought
We have had 500 years to see the errors of the reformers. Their ideas have not resulted in a golden age of the Church, rather chaos of competition and abandonment of Christian truth because they know better and are able to reform God’s work. This just in…. They can’t
Sure they make a big show of it on the internet, but when examined, the teachings do not remain consistent. Just because someone cannot be convinced, does not make them automatically convincing
We see the abandonment of chastity as Christian teaching. The abandonment of development of virtue aka training in righteousness in favor of a mantra of “you can’t lose your salvation”, which results in abandonment of penance and removal of the horror of sin aka denial of the fear of the Lord
Some even say that evil will not be punished and evil does not result in eternal separation from God. They say punishment is temporary and evil will be annihilated which is reward of the peaceful sleep of death rather than the eternal fire warned against
Some say it is no longer sufficient to deny themselves and rest in Christ and Him crucified, the works of the old law must be added to avoid annihilation. They say you can’t be free from sin but are required to do these works to achieve God’s favor

They say you can never be free, don’t worry about sin in this life, don’t even think of doing penance out of love for God. Don’t try to follow the New Covenant, just keep the works of the Old
And stop worrying about sin and offending God. God will save you if you do these small works

Does this sound like the Gospel at all? Jesus said that He came that we might have life and that more abundantly, not that we would remain in the death of sin unable to break free. He said follow me, whom the Son sets free is free indeed. If you are dead to sin, how can you live any longer there in? He also said hell is eternal where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

Who do we believe? Christ who would set us free from sin? Or those that say we remain in the bondage of sin and must continue works of the law to maybe set free in an undetermined time in the future?

I know who I believe

ViaCrucis · Sunday at 8:24 PM

Hentenza said:
If Jesus is human
and Mary gave birth to Jesus
Then Mary gave birth to the human Jesus.

You can’t have it both ways. Mary did indeed give birth to the godliness of Jesus but she also gave birth to the human portion of Jesus. To argue differently would be to fall into heresy.

We don't divide Jesus in two. There is only one Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, without division and without confusion; the one and undivided God-Man.

That is who Mary gave birth to. That is why she is the birth-giver of God (Theotokos), because the Divine Person (the Son) was conceived and born in the flesh of her flesh. The Eternal, Uncreated, Divine Person, God the Son, became man. He, God, became the offspring of Mary. Mary became the mother of God (God the Son). She gave birth to God.

She did not give birth to a nature, but to a Person.

My mom didn't give birth to my human nature, as the mother of an abstract idea--she gave birth to me, personally. She isn't the mother of my human nature, she's my mother. Now I happen to be a human being and nothing more.

Mary, however, gave birth to Someone who is both God and man; and because He is, in His Eternal Personhood, God the Son and Logos, we say she is the mother of God. Not the mother of a nature. She is the mother of Him, He who is Eternal Son and Word of the Father: Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Sunday at 8:26 PM

Hentenza said:
I don’t appreciate your insult of Protestants.

It's not an insult against Protestants. It's pointing out the rampant theological ignorance that does happen to exist in a large volume of modern Protestants.

The ones who will be the first to tell you this is a longstanding problem are, themselves, Protestants.

Modern Christianity, in general, has a major theological illiteracy problem. This is especially true of Protestants.

-CryptoLutheran

chevyontheriver · Sunday at 8:32 PM

Amo2 said:
Wow. So you really do basically consider Mary to be basically God. So be it.

No. No. No.

Mary is a human being, and nothing more than a human being. Not God. Just as you will not be God if you are blessed enough to enjoy the beatific vision after your days on earth are finished.

Basically.

chevyontheriver · Sunday at 8:34 PM

Hentenza said:
I dont care about the uninspired words of Athanasius. His perspective is his opinion and not inspired scripture.

Your perspective is your opinion and not inspired Scripture. Ergo I don't care about your uninspired words.

Hentenza · Sunday at 8:35 PM

ViaCrucis said:
We don't divide Jesus in two.

And yet you venerate Mary as only the mother of God. Go figure.

ViaCrucis said:
There is only one Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, without division and without confusion; the one and undivided God-Man.

Yes. I have already agreed.

ViaCrucis said:
That is who Mary gave birth to. That is why she is the birth-giver of God (Theotokos), because the Divine Person (the Son) was conceived and born in the flesh of her flesh. The Eternal, Uncreated, Divine Person, God the Son, became man. He, God, became the offspring of Mary. Mary became the mother of God (God the Son). She gave birth to God.

But Mary also gave birth to the human Jesus and you dont call her just the mother of the human Jesus.

ViaCrucis said:
She did not give birth to a nature, but to a Person.

Right. A person with two natures.

ViaCrucis said:
My mom didn't give birth to my human nature, as the mother of an abstract idea--she gave birth to me, personally. She isn't the mother of my human nature, she's my mother. Now I happen to be a human being and nothing more.

Irrelevant.

ViaCrucis said:
Mary, however, gave birth to Someone who is both God and man; and because He is, in His Eternal Personhood, God the Son and Logos, we say she is the mother of God. Not the mother of a nature. She is the mother of Him, He who is Eternal Son and Word of the Father: Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

And fully human. Mary gave birth to Jesus who is fully God and fully human. Mary is the mother of Jesus not just God.

Hentenza · Sunday at 8:38 PM

ViaCrucis said:
It's not an insult against Protestants. It's pointing out the rampant theological ignorance that does happen to exist in a large volume of modern Protestants.

The ones who will be the first to tell you this is a longstanding problem are, themselves, Protestants.

Modern Christianity, in general, has a major theological illiteracy problem. This is especially true of Protestants.

-CryptoLutheran

That’d rich considering that your church is the first modern Protestant church.

ViaCrucis · Sunday at 8:46 PM

Hentenza said:
If Jesus is human
and Mary gave birth to Jesus
Then Mary gave birth to the human Jesus.

You can’t have it both ways. Mary did indeed give birth to the godliness of Jesus but she also gave birth to the human portion of Jesus. To argue differently would be to fall into heresy.

Is Jesus a Divine Person who assumed humanity? If Jesus is a Divine Person (God) then Mary gave birth to this Divine Person (God), she is therefore the mother of God.

Your statement "Mary gave birth to the human Jesus" would suggest that there's a human person called "Jesus". Is there a human person distinct from the Divine Person? How many persons is Jesus?

Jesus is one Person, a Divine Person, who assumed humanity--therefore being both God and man in His one undivided Person. There is no "human Jesus" as though there is one Jesus who is human, and another Jesus that is Divine. There is one Jesus, the Eternal Son of the Father, the Divine and Uncreated Logos. This one Divine Person assumed into Himself human nature thereby becoming human through assumption and union with human nature. Not a Divine Person united with a human person; but a Divine Person assuming into Himself the fullness of the human nature. Thus He is human by taking upon Himself and into Himself humanity. Thus there is, in His one undivided Person, what He has always been (God) and what He has assumed (human), without division and without confusion. Without division, because we cannot divide Jesus in two, there is one Jesus Christ; and without confusion, because what is Divine is Divine and what is human is human, the Divine does not become less Divine; nor is the human lesser or lessened by the union--He is human in all ways like us, body, soul, and mind, but without sin.

Mary gave birth to Jesus. Not to the "human Jesus", there is no "human Jesus", there's only Jesus. Jesus is human, by way of union and assumption; there is no human person, no human Jesus apart from the one Divine Person who took on flesh.

These things are basic Christology, this is the stuff they teach in every seminary or Christian academic setting worth its salt, regardless of denomination. This is what is taught in every Catholic seminary, in every Baptist seminary, in every Evangelical seminary. Because it's fundamental, basic, it's a core doctrine of Christianity.

Rejecting this isn't just having a difference of opinion. Rejecting this is blatant heresy. Not in a pejorative or subjective sense; but objectively speaking: Heresy is, objectively speaking, rejecting the core teaching of the faith.

Rejecting the Trinity is heresy.
Rejecting the Incarnation is heresy.
Rejecting the bodily resurrection is heresy.
Rejecting that Personal Union of Divine and human in Jesus Christ is heresy.

And just as the Trinity is clearly defined. So is the Incarnation and Personal Union clearly defined.

We don't get to make up new definitions for the Trinity, we don't get to make up new definitions for the Incarnation or the Personal Union. These doctrines are defined, and we--as Christians--have a spiritual and moral obligation to believe the truth of these things. Because these are the things that define Christianity as Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

chevyontheriver · Sunday at 8:47 PM

Hentenza said:
That’d rich considering that your church is the first modern Protestant church.

Now don't go insulting Protestants.

ViaCrucis · Sunday at 8:52 PM

Hentenza said:
And yet you venerate Mary as only the mother of God. Go figure.

I respect and revere Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ, the woman who was blessed and chosen by God to fulfill this purpose in the story of redemptive history; of bringing the Messiah into the world.

I worship Jesus Christ by confessing He is true God and true man in perfect unity of His Divine Person, and out of my adoration of my God and Savior Jesus Christ, I confess that He is God--He is God who became man in the virgin's womb.

So I call Mary mother of God because I worship Jesus Christ my Lord and God.
I respect and revere the mother of God because she is a holy and blessed saint of God, who gave birth to Jesus.

I also respect and revere Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; Moses, Elijah, and all the Prophets, John the Baptist; and also the Holy Apostles, and the ancient fathers and all who have born witness to Christ through their words and life. Because God has, throughout history, worked through men and women to accomplish is sacred and holy purpose of redemption. For all the patriarchs and prophets of old look forward to Christ, and all of the Apostles and saints of the Church bear witness to the saving power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hentenza said:
Yes. I have already agreed.

But Mary also gave birth to the human Jesus and you dont call her just the mother of the human Jesus.

Because to call her "just the mother of the human Jesus" is a heretical denial of Jesus Christ the Incarnate God-Man.

Hentenza said:
Right. A person with two natures.

Irrelevant.

And fully human. Mary gave birth to Jesus who is fully God and fully human. Mary is the mother of Jesus not just God.

Mary gave birth to the One Undivided Divine Person, Jesus Christ, and He is God from all eternity; who in time came down from heaven, became flesh, assuming human nature to Himself.

Mary is the mother of God.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Sunday at 8:53 PM

Hentenza said:
That’d rich considering that your church is the first modern Protestant church.

What's rich about it?

-CryptoLutheran

Hentenza · Sunday at 8:57 PM

ViaCrucis said:
Is Jesus a Divine Person who assumed humanity? If Jesus is a Divine Person (God) then Mary gave birth to this Divine Person (God), she is therefore the mother of God.

Your first question and your second statement fo not follow. Jusus has to be both fully human and fully God. Mary is therefore the mother of both.

ViaCrucis said:
Your statement "Mary gave birth to the human Jesus" would suggest that there's a human person called "Jesus". Is there a human person distinct from the Divine Person? How many persons is Jesus?

One. The one that is fully God and the Jesus that emptied himself and took the form of a bond servant. Do you deny scripture?

ViaCrucis said:
Jesus is one Person, a Divine Person, who assumed humanity--therefore being both God and man in His one undivided Person. There is no "human Jesus" as though there is one Jesus who is human, and another Jesus that is Divine. There is one Jesus, the Eternal Son of the Father, the Divine and Uncreated Logos. This one Divine Person assumed into Himself human nature thereby becoming human through assumption and union with human nature. Not a Divine Person united with a human person; but a Divine Person assuming into Himself the fullness of the human nature. Thus He is human by taking upon Himself and into Himself humanity. Thus there is, in His one undivided Person, what He has always been (God) and what He has assumed (human), without division and without confusion. Without division, because we cannot divide Jesus in two, there is one Jesus Christ; and without confusion, because what is Divine is Divine and what is human is human, the Divine does not become less Divine; nor is the human lesser or lessened by the union--He is human in all ways like us, body, soul, and mind, but without sin.
Mary gave birth to Jesus. Not to the "human Jesus", there is no "human Jesus", there's only Jesus. Jesus is human, by way of union and assumption; there is no human person, no human Jesus apart from the one Divine Person who took on flesh.

Again, read scripture.

“who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2‬:‭6‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Philippians 2:6-8 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me | New American Standard Bible -

who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me

bible.com

Which Jesus is Paul describing here?

Hentenza · Sunday at 8:58 PM

ViaCrucis said:
What's rich about it?

-CryptoLutheran

You denigrate other Protestant churches but hold yours blameless. That is indeed rich.

prodromos · Sunday at 9:05 PM

Hentenza said:
I don’t appreciate your insult of Protestants. Pretty arrogant of you.

Yet it is fine for you in your ignorance to claim we minimise the humanity of Christ It isn't arrrogance to point out a fact. If you actually familiarised yourself with Orthodox theology as I recommend, you would understand that we do not by any means, minimise Christ's humanity.

Hentenza said:
Tell me brother, when did Jesus emptied Himself and become man?

Here is the scripture.

“who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭2‬:‭6‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Philippians 2:6-8 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me | New American Standard Bible -

who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of me

bible.com

Are you trying to claim that Christ ceased to be God when He became man? That would be heresy. Otherwise I don't understand what the above has to do with what we've been discussing. What is your point?

Hentenza said:
I dont care about the uninspired words of Athanasius. His perspective is his opinion and not inspired scripture.

In other words, your opinion about what you think we teach is more important than learning what we actually teach. And you called me arrogant

How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

Senior Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Senior Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Senior Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Legend

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Senior Veteran

Similar threads