Theotokos and neo-Nestorianism

[PilgrimToChrist]

I'm a so-called "protestant", (I prefer the term Christian because I'm a son of God),

"Protestant" defines you as a split off of the Catholic Church. Most Christians are Catholic, all Protestant denominations combined form a minority of the current population. That is why we have to be specific. When I speak of Christianity, I speak of the faith of the universal Church, what has defined Christianity throughout the centuries -- the Catholic Church. You are Protestant because you are in protest, or rebellion, from the Church of Christ.

and I can totally guarantee that no-one with half a brain would deny that Mary gave birth to the Christ Jesus.

But who is this Jesus? That is the big question. An atheist could believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus. It takes a Christian to believe He is God.

What we believe is that there is no point praying to Mary, or Abraham, or any other dead saint. That"s an abomination. We should only speak to the living.

Thankfully, they're not dead. My Blessed Mother happens to be one of my best friends... She is far more alive than me or you. Jesus rose from the dead, He is alive and those in Him are alive.

Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ; whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.

For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ, are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep:

For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But every one in his own order: the firstfruits Christ, then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming.

 

[Uphill Battle]

"Protestant" defines you as a split off of the Catholic Church. Most Christians are Catholic, all Protestant denominations combined form a minority of the current population. That is why we have to be specific. When I speak of Christianity, I speak of the faith of the universal Church, what has defined Christianity throughout the centuries -- the Catholic Church. You are Protestant because you are in protest, or rebellion, from the Church of Christ.

interesting thought... but false.

If I'm a of Scottish blood, but born in Canada (and I am) I am no more beholden to the governement of Scotland, as I am to that of zimbabwe.

"protestants" is just a loose term. I am as a "protestant" no more in rebellion to the Catholic church, as I am to any group that holds no authority over me.

But who is this Jesus? That is the big question. An atheist could believe that Mary was the mother of Jesus. It takes a Christian to believe He is God.

ah, but it does not neccessarily take a CATHOLIC to believe the same.

Thankfully, they're not dead. My Blessed Mother happens to be one of my best friends... She is far more alive than me or you. Jesus rose from the dead, He is alive and those in Him are alive.

I'm sorry if this sounds disrespectful, as it is not intended to. But there is a difference. I have serious doubt that Mary (or any other departed Saint) drops over for tea and cookies.

there is a divide of sorts. That does not mean they are not alive, they are more so than we are.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Something that springs to mind is the Mariologial society, "America Needs Fatima" etc.

What about them? I'm on their email list. You will have to be more specific.

I won't say any more about them, since you consider them valid. I can only offend you if I speak my mind on those groups.

What about Fuller Theological Seminary? What about the 700 Club? What about Rick Warren? What about Answers in Genesis? What about the Bible Answer Man? What about them?

You simply brought up the name of an organization without making any point regarding them. Tradition, Family and Property, America Needs Fatima (and the Heralds of the Gospel) do very good work. If you are trying to impugn them somehow, you should at least say what you feel rather than just trying to infer something.

The Virgin conquered the Muslim hordes at Lepanto, the Virgin toppled Communism, the Virgin destroyed liberation theology in Brazil and other countries, the Virgin continues to fight for us night and day, she crushed the serpent and continues to crush him until the end of time. Prof. Plinio was right to place his trust and devotion in the Virgin.

If you understand her, if you understand who she is, if you know her, then your assertion that she could ever be seen or act apart from Her Divine Son is impossible. You only say these things because you do not know her.

oh, you're one of THOSE.

the people who think us modern day protestants are in "rebellion" to the Roman Catholic church.

we won't get anywhere going down this road.

Um... what else are Protestants? It's not like they just popped into existence one day completely unconnected to the rest of the Christian world. "Us modern day protestants" follow the spiritual patrimony of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and all those men who left the Catholic Church to form their own religions in opposition to the Church and even in opposition to each other, since without the Church no one could agree on anything to believe in.

In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself.

Isn't that the Protestant ideal?

The Protestant attack differed from the rest especially in this characteristic, that its attack did not consist in the promulgation of a new doctrine or of a new authority, that it made no concerted attempt at creating a counter-Church, but had for its principle the denial of unity. It was an effort to promote that state of mind in which a 'Church' in the old sense of the word -- that is, an infallible, united, teaching body, a Person speaking with Divine authority -- should be denied; not the doctrines it might happen to advance, but its very claim to advance them with unique authority. Thus, one Protestant may affirm, as do the English Puseyites, the truth of all the doctrines underlying the Mass -- the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, the sacerdotal power of consecration, etc. -- another Protestant may affirm that all such conceptions are false,
yet both these Protestants are Protestant because they communicate in the fundamental conception that the Church is not a visible, definable and united personality, that there is no central infallible authority, and that therefore each is free to choose his own set of doctrines.

Such affirmations of disunion, such denial of the claim to unity as being part of the Divine order, produced indeed a common Protestant temperament through certain historical associations; but there is no one doctrine nor set of doctrines which can be affirmed as being the kernel of Protestantism. Its essential remains the rejection of unity through authority.

Surveying the doctrinal destruction brought about by his revolt, Luther lamented:

There are as many sects now and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow has nothing to do with baptism. Another one denies the sacraments. A third believes there is another world between this one and the last day. Some teach that Christ is not God. Some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude that if he dreams or fancies anything believes it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and that he himself must be a prophet.

 

[laconicstudent]

interesting thought... but false.

If I'm a of Scottish blood, but born in Canada (and I am) I am no more beholden to the governement of Scotland, as I am to that of zimbabwe.

"protestants" is just a loose term. I am as a "protestant" no more in rebellion to the Catholic church, as I am to any group that holds no authority over me.

Non-denominationals are generally lumped as "Protestant" because it is one of the many little movements that resulted indirectly and is thought as being descended from the Reformation. It is a label for convenience sake if nothing else.

If you disagree, please point to which modern extantbranch you feel you belong to.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What about Fuller Theological Seminary? What about the 700 Club? What about Rick Warren? What about Answers in Genesis? What about the Bible Answer Man? What about them?

indeed, what about them?

You simply brought up the name of an organization without making any point regarding them.

I already made my point. That there are certain organizations or people that take Marian devotion far past the point of "standard" Catholic practice. I'm not one of those people who think that Catholics are Mary worshippers, I do however believe that the organizations I've mentioned (and some individuals) take their "devotion" to Mary far past levels where it's really all about Christ anymore.

to blindly state that all devotion to Mary is for Christ's sake instead of Marys, is turning a blind eye to those who would pevert a good thing to a bad thing.

Remember that the accusation was not levelled that all Marian devotion is suspect, but to state it's ALL as it should be, is shortsighted and willfully ignorant.
SINS AGAINST MARY

Tradition, Family and Property, America Needs Fatima (and the Heralds of the Gospel) do very good work. If you are trying to impugn them somehow, you should at least say what you feel rather than just trying to infer something.

the work they do or do not do are irrelevant. I am not questioning at all if they have done good things.

The Virgin conquered the Muslim hordes at Lepanto, the Virgin toppled Communism, the Virgin destroyed liberation theology in Brazil and other countries,

and the Virgin, who is no longer among us on this earth (or plane, or however you want to say it) did these things how?

the Virgin continues to fight for us night and day, she crushed the serpent and continues to crush him until the end of time.

Christ crushed the serpent.

If you understand her, if you understand who she is, if you know her, then your assertion that she could ever be seen or act apart from Her Divine Son is impossible. You only say these things because you do not know her.

the "you can't understand because you don't believe" argument. Fairly standard.

Um... what else are Protestants? It's not like they just popped into existence one day completely unconnected to the rest of the Christian world. "Us modern day protestants" follow the spiritual patrimony of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and all those men who left the Catholic Church to form their own religions in opposition to the Church and even in opposition to each other, since without the Church no one could agree on anything to believe in.

I've got news for you. There have been, and still are disagreements with the Catholic church. Disagreement isn't what sets us apart.

nor does agreement with our own sect define us as valid. We all tend to agree with ourselves. the point being made, is that my entire life has been independant of the Roman Catholic church. I did not rebel against something that never had any hold over me in the first place.

Isn't that the Protestant ideal?

for some, I'm sure. we are worlds apart though, so we're not going to find common ground to discuss. You firmly believe us non Catholics are in deep rebellion, that we're flouting the RC way, that we're rebels.

where at least for my part, the "division" couldn't be more irrelevant. I find it impossible to rebel against something that never had any place in my life in the first place!
[/quote]

Non-denominationals are generally lumped as "Protestant" because it is one of the many little movements that resulted indirectly and is thought as being descended from the Reformation. It is a label for convenience sake if nothing else.

exactly, spot on. But then if our dear sister Pilgrim is to be believed, we spring from the womb with a sword in hand, ready to fight the tyrant from the Vatican. That we, in our faith, are beholden to the Catholic Church, and that we actively rebel against it.

I think it is just unacceptable to Pilgrim, and those who believe the same, that some of us would consider the Catholic Church as having no part of our lives in the first place. To them, it's either you follow allong, or your fighting against.

a strange thought indeed.

If you disagree, please point to which modern extant branch you feel you belong to.

specific groups don't make much difference to me. theoretically baptist, as that would be my families lineage, but I've never considered myself as a baptist per se.

I think all of it is just a detraction, not an addition, to Christianity.

 

[MrPolo]

Do I read this chart right that it says the Catholic Church started in 1517?

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

 

[laconicstudent]

Do I read this chart right that it says the Catholic Church started in 1517?

No, it is just pointing out the split from the Reformation at that time. It is an ecumenical chart so it doesn't promote one side as schisming from the other.

I actually like this one better, good find.

Although one should note it neglects the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox.

 

[Standing Up]

Not with the traditions of men, but the Sacred Traditions given to us by God.

Spooky.

Like the ones in the 20th century that are clearly found in scripture that Clement, Justin, Tertullian and the other folks didn't know about.

We will stand fast by Scripture and the Apostles. Scripture only makes any sense within the context of the Church. To try to take Scripture out of context results in chaos and confusion, as we have seen.

You're not confusing the building with the people again, right?

 

[Chesterton]

Do I read this chart right that it says the Catholic Church started in 1517?

Wow, that's way off. It should show it starting in 1054.

 

[MrPolo]

Wow, that's way off. It should show it starting in 1054.

I would say you've got it the other way around, but I believe the Orthodox can claim Apostolic Succession as well as the Catholic Church.

 

[ripple the car]

i'd be interested to know how Nestorius came to disagree over the title "Theotokos". essentially, why he was upset over the title. does anyone know?

if you're meaning "God" as "God the Father" then no, Mary is not the Mother of God. but as Christ is fully God and fully Man, she did actually bear God in flesh into the world, and so the title is not wrong. could this be why Nestorius rejected the title?

 

[MrPolo]

i'd be interested to know how Nestorius came to disagree over the title "Theotokos". essentially, why he was upset over the title. does anyone know?

if you're meaning "God" as "God the Father" then no, Mary is not the Mother of God. but as Christ is fully God and fully Man, she did actually bear God in flesh into the world, and so the title is not wrong. could this be why Nestorius rejected the title?

Here's the whole story on Nestorius according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[ripple the car]

Here's the whole story on Nestorius according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

neat! thank you, Sir. that's quite detailed.

 

[Hairy Tic]

A fundamentalist Baptist who I spar with on Facebook posted a link to this article

Quoting from the article:



(The following is my response to him, I just posted this last night, he hasn't responded yet.)

Well, the transliteration of the Greek Θεοτόκος is "Theotokos", not "theoticas" -- I don't know what happened there... The literal translation is "Theos" - "God", and "tokos" - "birth", so "Theotokos", "The one who gives birth to God" or "God-bearer" or "Mother of God".

But more fundamentally, yes, "that indicates that God was born". Indeed, it is the fundamental, primary assertion of Christianity that God the Son, who was and is being eternally born of God the Father was also born in ("the fullness of") time as a man. He "became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man", as the Council of Nicea put it. The distinction here that the author makes between the "human Jesus" as distinct from the "divine Jesus" (as we can infer) is the very same Nestorian heresy that the Counsel of Ephesus was trying to combat!

Nestorius did not go as far as some Gnostics did who distinguished between the human Jesus and the divine Christ, still his separation between Christ's human and divine natures was too strong. By saying that Mary only gave birth to the human Jesus, he was accused of adoptionism -- claiming that a human Jesus *became* God.

On the other hand orthodoxy asserts a complete *union* of the human and divine natures (though they remain distinct) such that, yes, God Himself was born a mewling infant child.

Indeed, it is that total union of the human and divine natures

## Though without absorption, alteration, change, mixture or confusion of either They are distinct, but not separate. I find the Johannine (& Pauline) language about indwelling very helpful here: they indwell one another; just as the Father, the Son, & the Christian indwell one another, without confusion, of any kind. Each of the two natures retains what is proper to it: "One of the Trinity suffered" because of the union between the human nature (which is able to suffer because it is human) & the Divine Nature (which does not suffer). On the same principle, theology speaks of "theandric works", works of Jesus which are both human and Divine - human in manifestation because done by One who is a man, Divine in effect & value. The miracles & the Passion are theandric.

As they two natures are incommensurable, no confusion between them is possible; but God can do what man cannot: He can take into Himself as His own nature that nature which is proper to man & is God's creation. And that, in being made flesh, made man, made God-with-us, is exactly what He has done. His Divine Person is the "third term" within which two incommensurable things - the Nature of God, the nature of man - are united.

Since this is an act of Divine humility, that proceeds solely from the loving purpose of God, & "not [from] the will of man", it is hard to see how it can be wrong to call Mary the God-bearer, or Mother of the Word Incarnate: for that is precisely what it has pleased God to make her.

One might as well complain that He has made "some prophets, some apostles, some evangelists", some inspired hagiographers, working variously in each for the salvation of all - thereby working in them to make them effective. If it is not objectionable for Him to do that, and even to make mere men His members, even though they are men and not God - what makes it impossible or intolerable or unChristian for Him, Who has created & rules all things, to make one of His own creatures His mother ? Nothing is being claimed for any creature, that He has not given.

I suspect there is a sort of confused humility at work - that Mary cannot be made Theotokos, because God is too high, & holy, & exalted really to be that close to man; that man is too sinful for God to be so intimate with anything so unclean. That is just a guess though.

that is the basis of our salvation, it is not an obscure thing to argue how important it is that we understand that Christ is fully human and fully divine, eternally united in one person, with two wills. Assault on the nature of Christ undermines the foundation of our faith. That is why the Christological crises were so important to the Church.

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" ~ Lk 1:43

## Maybe your Baptist should read the Tome of Leo of Rome - which the Fathers of Chalcedon greeted as expressing the Orthodox & Catholic Faith.

And there is St.Leontius later on.

BTW, there is no suggestion that the Word Who "with the Father", ceases to be with Him by being born of Mary. The Incarnation makes no change in the Blessed Trinity - the only change is in man, by the taking of the nature of man into the Person of the Word. This is so, because God is not flesh & blood, & is not extended in space - IOW, God is not a body. God is Spirit - man, is not.

 

[Tangible]

PROTESTANT

1. Lutherans have always confessed Mary as the Theotokos since the beginning of the Reformation.

From the Epitome of the Formula of Concord

11] For how could the man, the son of Mary, in truth be called or be God, or the Son of God the Most High, if His humanity were not personally united with the Son of God, and He thus had reality, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with Him except only the name of God?

12] 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.

More here and here.

2. The chart posted by laconic student shows Pentecostals stemming from Baptists. This is incorrect. Pentecostalism grew out of mainly Methodist substrata.

3. The chart posted from US News shows Baptists originating out of the Anabaptists. This is incorrect. Although modern Baptists do incorporate some of the anti-sacramentalism of the Anabaptists, they actually originated within the Anglican Church.