How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

ViaCrucis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep. So do I.

ViaCrucis said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ok.

ViaCrucis said:

So I call Mary mother of God because I worship Jesus Christ my Lord and God.

Click to expand...

No. You do because of your misguided Mariology.

ViaCrucis said:

I respect and revere the mother of God because she is a holy and blessed saint of God, who gave birth to Jesus.

Click to expand...

She is a regular human being. Only a human being can give birth to the Jesus that emptied himself and took the form of a bond servant. Jesus had to be fully human to fulfill the law and die on the cross for our sins.

ViaCrucis said:

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.

Click to expand...

We agree.

ViaCrucis said:

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

Click to expand...

Which heresy would that be?

ViaCrucis said:

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.

Click to expand...

And yet no human Jesus, no filfillment of the law, and no atonement.

ViaCrucis said:

Mary is the mother of God.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

So you keep repeating.

prodromos said:

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.

Click to expand...

I am an orthodox Christian but not an “Orthodox“ Christian. Your church does not have the monopoly on Christ or Christianity.

prodromos said:

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?

Click to expand...

Exegesis this verse which you ignored and did not quote. I’m not claiming that He ceased to be God but that He cooperated with His human nature.


“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

prodromos said:

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

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

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

Click to expand...

It's a given that she is the mother of man. That is the whole point of calling a human, Mary, the mother of God. No one needs to make a point of saying a human gives birth to a human. Like begets like. Even the heretics understood this, which is why they resisted the title.

prodromos said:

It's a given that she is the mother of man. That is the whole point of calling a human, Mary, the mother of God. No one needs to make a point of saying a human gives birth to a human. Like begets like. Even the heretics understood this, which is why they resisted the title.

Click to expand...

You just could not resist referring to heretics did you? You mariology stems from the second century Christians that defended Mary against the horrible insults by the gnostics creating which by the Middle Ages became the cult of Mary. Mary was just a human, obedient and venerated for sure but just a human.

Hentenza said:

I am an orthodox Christian but not an “Orthodox“ Christian. Your church does not have the monopoly on Christ or Christianity.

Click to expand...

I am suggesting you educate yourself so you can stop making false claims about my Christianity. I don't understand why this is upsetting you so much.

Hentenza said:

Exegesis

Click to expand...

You didn't give an explanation which is why I asked. I had no idea what you were trying to say by posting that verse.

Hentenza said:

this verse which you ignored and did not quote.

Click to expand...

Clearly I did not ignore it, seeing as I asked if you meant a specific thing by posing that passage. I didn't think I needed to quote the verse since you had already posted it twice already.

Hentenza said:

I’m not claiming that He ceased to be God but that He cooperated with His human nature.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That's all I needed to know.

Hentenza said:

“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 2:7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.

bible.com

Click to expand...

I'm quoting it now. Are you happy? It still doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Hentenza said:

Click to expand...

So if I do something, it is arrogant, but if you do the same, it isn't. Got it.

Hentenza said:

You just could not resist referring to heretics did you? You mariology stems from the second century Christians that defended Mary against the horrible insults by the gnostics creating which by the Middle Ages became the cult of Mary. Mary was just a human, obedient and venerated for sure but just a human.

Click to expand...

So you choose to take offence at that one word so you can avoid responding to my actual argument.

Hentenza said:

Yes. But still two natures not just one.

Click to expand...

Your point being?

Jesus is God Incarnate.
The Blessed Virgin is His mother
Ergo, The BVM is the Mother of God

Hentenza said:

Which heresy would that be?

Click to expand...

Nestorianism.

Hentenza said:

And yet no human Jesus, no filfillment of the law, and no atonement.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that our Lord isn't God Incarnate? Now that's heretical!

Hentenza said:

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.

Click to expand...

It absolutely does.

When we speak of the Hypostasis and Prosopon of Jesus Christ, we are talking about the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

We are talking about the Person of the Son. He is a Divine Person, He's the Son.

That is the Person who came down and dwelt in Mary's womb, that's the Person Mary gave birth to.

Mary is the mother of God because Mary gave birth to the Divine Person of the Son.

This is not about Mary giving birth to "the divine nature", no more than it is about Mary giving birth to "the human nature". This is about the Person Mary conceived and gave birth to.

Hentenza said:

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?


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?

Click to expand...

The one undivided Jesus.

But you have introduced a Christologically erroneous element in speaking of a "human person" or a "human Jesus" as though there is a human other than the Divine Person. There isn't. The Divine Person assumed, took upon Himself, human nature.

Jesus is not a quilt of two pieces of cloth knit together and the resulting product is "Jesus". Jesus is the Eternal God, the Son of the Father. This one and same Person of the Son took on flesh, united to Himself humanity, becoming man. That is why He "though already in the form of God did not regard equality with God something to be exploited, but emptied Himself taking on the form of a slave, being born in human likeness".

God took on human nature. The Word became flesh.

A Divine Person became human. It is the Divine Person who hypostasizes the humanity. There is no Personhood, no Hypostasis, other than the Divine Person of the Son here; He is the Person who has humanity united to Him, which He has assumed and brought into Himself. Thus the Divine Person has not ceased to be what He always was and is; but in addition to what He has always been is now, also, man. Thus the Divine Person is conceived and born of Mary, as a man.

Mary is, therefore, the mother of God.

"God" here is not "divine nature" in some abstract sense. "God" here means the Divine Person of the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos.

-CryptoLutheran

Hentenza said:

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

Click to expand...

I have done no such thing. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.

-CryptoLutheran

Hentenza said:

No. You do because of your misguided Mariology.

Click to expand...

Christology.

Hentenza said:

She is a regular human being. Only a human being can give birth to the Jesus that emptied himself and took the form of a bond servant. Jesus had to be fully human to fulfill the law and die on the cross for our sins.

Click to expand...

Of course she's a regular human being. A regular human being that gave birth to God. She's the mother of God.

Hentenza said:

Which heresy would that be?

Click to expand...

At the moment it's looking a lot like Nestorianism.

-CryptoLutheran

prodromos said:

So according to you, Mary is the mother of the man, Jesus Christ, but not the mother of the divine, Jesus Christ? So how is your belief different from the heresy of Nestorianism?

Click to expand...

Technically Nestorianism is denying that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God - the resultant complex Christologies that flow from this are secondary, for example, the idea that our Lord consisted of a human person and a divine person united by a single will (thus interestingly Nestorianism implies Monothelitism, which is perhaps why the Oriental Orthodox also rejected Monothelitism (it is believed the Maronites embraced Monothelitism and then later had to be persuaded to reject it after entering into communion with Rome during the first crusade - this would also explain why an East Syriac anaphora wound up in their otherwise West Syriac liturgy, as it may have been imported from the Church of the East, because even after the Church of the East rejected Nestorianism under Mar Babai the Great, they continued to venerate Nestorius and indeed still do at present, despite having rejected Nestorianism even more explictly after Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, became Catholicos in 1974.

Jipsah said:

Nestorianism.

So, are you saying that our Lord isn't God Incarnate? Now that's heretical!

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the arguments being presented for why the Blessed Virgin Mary is not Theotokos appear to be Monophysite, which makes sense, since the Oriental Orthodox were never Monophysites after the fashion of Eutyches, in that like Chalcedonians the Oriental Orthodox believe Christ is fully God and fully man without change, confusion, separation or division, whereas Eutyches taught that His humanity dissolved into His divinity, resulting in Christ being neither God nor man, but a hybrid. This resulted in the Monophysites embracing Tritheism by the time of John Philoponus, their last prominent theologian, in the sixth century. After that we don’t hear anything more from them or about them other than the usual false accusations of monophysitism leveled at the Oriental Orthodox, these days mostly by Greek Old Calendarists and misguided converts to Orthodoxy of the “Hyperdox Herman” variety, which in turn cause a minority of Ethiopian monks to falsely accuse the Eastern Orthodox of Nestorianism.

But while the Old Calendarists and a minority of Ethiopian monastics duke it out, the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox, and the Coptic Orthodox and Alexandrian Greek Orthodox, have entered into ecumenical agreements that in both cases allow for intermarriage and for such people who marry members of the other church to receive in either the Eucharist, and in the case of the Syriac and Antiochian churches, allow for the reception of the Eucharist by members of either in both churches and preclude conversion. And the shared experience of persecution in Egypt and Syria and Iraq and in Chad and Libya by the Eastern Orthodox and the Armenians, Copts, Syriacs, Ethiopians and Eritreans has bound the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox together more tightly than ever before, for example the abduction of the bishops of Aleppo in 2013 (which was also the event that made me resolve to join the Orthodox Church). Since that time Antiochians and Syriac Orthodox routinely pray for each other in their litanies.

We need not be surprised the schism is ending, since in the 19th century the Copts and Alexandrian Greeks tried to merge their churches into one but were thwarted by the Khedive, the nominal Ottoman viceroy, really a sovereign prince in his own right, who correctly identified a united Christian church in Egypt was a threat to Islamic hegemony. Unfortunately since then the population of Alexandrian Greeks has declined, but conversely since all canonical Eastern Orthodox missions in Africa have been under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa, the membership of the Alexandrian Greek church has skyrocketed (the Copts have also been hugely successful with missions; conversely the Ethiopians have also been very successful, but mainly in the West Indies rather than in Africa; within Africa Orthodox conversion has been dominated by the two Egyptian churches.

You will also be pleased to note that both have very good relations with the Anglicans in Egypt. Actually, Anglican support of Eastern Christians, ranging from the donations to Mount Athos by Prince Philip’s trust (memory eternal) to vestments supplied to Syriac clergy by Anglo Catholic church guilds since the 19th century, have all been so beneficial.

ViaCrucis said:

I have done no such thing. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Indeed what you wrote was the doctrine not just of the Lutherans but the Anglicans, Moravians and Calvinists and later the Methodists. All historic Protestant denominations reject Nestorianism. Even Pepperdine University, which is the center of the Church of Christ part of the Stone/Campbell movement, publishes booklets that list ancient heresies which include Nestorianism (a local Church of Christ is one of the few with a seminary-trained pastor with an MDiv from Pepperdine, and he actually carries such a booklet on his person; he has also managed to successfully force his congregation to celebrate Christmas and Easter - this being a Church of Christ there are those who oppose celebrating those feasts. Unfortunately only a minority of Churches of Christ benefit from a seminary-trained pastor.

Hentenza said:

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

Click to expand...

You probably should care more about what he said since he almost single-handedly preserved Christianity from the Arian heresy, for in addition to his role at Nicaea, where he was instrumental as protodeacon for his predecessor St. Alexander of Alexandria in explaining why the Church of Alexandria anathematized Arius for denying the Incarnation, he also played a key role in drafting the initial version of the Nicene Creed.

Later, after Eusebius of Nicomedia converted Emperor Constantius, the son of St. Constantine, to Arianism, who began a brutal decades long persecution in which nearly all Christian bishops were replaced by Arians; this persecution did not end in the Roman Empire until 386, and since the Arians evangelized Visigoths and Ostrogoths, as the Roman Empire collapsed the Christians were persecuted and in some cases killed off by Arians. Later the Visigoths in North Africa and West Asia converted to Islam. Much of this time St. Athanasius spent in exile in various places, but he continued writing and advocating for the Christian perspective, and organizing the resistance to Arianism, which would be undertaken by the likes of the Cappadocians, St. Epiphanios of Salamis, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Isidore of Seville and St. Jerome.

What is more, St. Athanasius also is responsible for the standard New Testament canon that we all use. Were it not for him, we would most likely either have fewer books, such as we see in the original edition of the Syriac Peshitta, which lacks 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation, or more books, which we see in the Codex Sinaiticus and other ancient Greek editions, which have extra books, including psuedepigrapha like Laodiceans, 1 Barnabus, and Patristic works like the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement (the latter of course being useful, but the early church decided only Apostolic writings should go into the New Testament - note that St. Luke and St. Mark were among the Seventy).

Jipsah said:

Nestorianism.

Click to expand...

I did not argue that Christ divine and human natures are unconnected and divergent so no.

Jipsah said:

So, are you saying that our Lord isn't God Incarnate? Now that's heretical!

Click to expand...

Never said that.

The Liturgist said:

Interestingly, the arguments being presented for why the Blessed Virgin Mary is not Theotokos appear to be Monophysite,

Click to expand...

Never argued that Christ has one united nature rather than two distinct natures.

Hentenza said:

I did not argue that Christ divine and human natures are unconnected and divergent so no.

Never said that.

Click to expand...

I think this whole shebang of a 'debate' between you and all of these Catholic brethren is the sort of thing that transpires all to often when folks end up applying formal logic to Christian facts that either have not been fully and comprehensively explained or are no longer fully accessible to most people (despite the many claims that Christians make about the Holy Spirit directing them to develop this doctrine or to emphasize this or that doctrine by which to splinter off into another sect.)

Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia

This is why I don't get into these sorts of debates with other Trinitarian Christians. I'd rather just see us as one big, potentially happy family, if folks will just let it be.