Well, that settles it. I’m a heretic and anathema.

[Hammster]

Bummer for me.

 

[AlexB23]

View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.

Taylor Marshall is a Catholic. So, he has every right to believe in this. I am a Catholic myself, but I do not study Mary that much. Taylor Marshall needs to chill a bit though, as that is a great way for him to turn people away from Jesus by calling people heretics.

 

[mourningdove~]

Taylor Marshall needs to chill a bit though, as that is a great way for him to turn people away from Jesus by calling people heretics.

Well, is he telling the truth, as he and the Catholic Church believe it to be?

And don't persons deserve to know what the Catholic Church teaches, especially if they are considering converting to Catholicism?

My guess is that Dr. Marshall got that information from official Church documents.
(He is not one to make up stuff when it comes to discussing RC doctrine.)

 

[Hammster]

Taylor Marshall is a Catholic. So, he has every right to believe in this. I am a Catholic myself, but I do not study Mary that much. Taylor Marshall needs to chill a bit though, as that is a great way for him to turn people away from Jesus by calling people heretics.

It looks as if he’s trying to turn people to Mary.

 

[AlexB23]

Is he lying?

Well, I have only been a Catholic for two years, but he is being over dramatic. One is not a heretic for not believing in everything about Mary. As long as one believes in Jesus, His saving power, and transubstantiation, one could be a Catholic.

 

[Hammster]

Well, I have only been a Catholic for two years, but he is being over dramatic. One is not a heretic for not believing in everything about Mary. As long as one believes in Jesus, His saving power, and transubstantiation, one could be a Catholic.

So he’s lying. That’s a relief.

 

[chevyontheriver]

View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.

Instead of being bummed out maybe you could see if you have any wiggle room on any of these teachings of the faith and could get to the point of not being a heretic any more. For example, the first one. Any wiggle room in your position on that where you would be able to stop considering yourself a heretic?

Sorry that Taylor Marshall rubs you wrong. He alternates between being over the top and being right on. Recently he was over the top in considering that pope Francis wasn't actually the pope. He may have settled down about that by now. I donno. He is not an irenic guy. But you do know where you stand. And where he does.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It looks as if he’s trying to turn people to Mary.

Some people have lost the balance about Mary, especially on the anti-Catholic side. Let's nobody fall over.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.

Fortunately for me, I barely concern myself with whether or not other fellow Christians consider me to be a heretic, especially if I surmise that they misuse or misapply, or otherwise push a deficient, epistemological standpoint by which to hold me accountable.

So. The short of it? I barely worry about it.

The fun part comes when someone shows up thinking they're going to be the one to correct me with their "sure knowledge" ...........

 

[Hammster]

Instead of being bummed out maybe you could see if you have any wiggle room on any of these teachings of the faith and could get to the point of not being a heretic any more. For example, the first one. Any wiggle room in your position on that where you would be able to stop considering yourself a heretic?

Sorry that Taylor Marshall rubs you wrong. He alternates between being over the top and being right on. Recently he was over the top in considering that pope Francis wasn't actually the pope. He may have settled down about that by now. I donno. He is not an irenic guy. But you do know where you stand. And where he does.

I agree with the first. I’ll never agree on the other three. So where does that leave me?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree with the first. I’ll never agree on the other three. So where does that leave me?

Only three quarters heretic?

On the second point, where do you stand in regards to the second council of Constantinople? Do you reject all of it or only parts of it?

 

[jas3]

Well, I have only been a Catholic for two years, but he is being over dramatic. One is not a heretic for not believing in everything about Mary. As long as one believes in Jesus, His saving power, and transubstantiation, one could be a Catholic.

Not in good standing. From Munificentissimus Deus:

"45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

There's probably an anathema in Trent about the Immaculate Conception too, but you get the idea.

 

[Hammster]

Only three quarters heretic?

What percentage do I need to get before I’m no longer anathema?

On the second point, where do you stand in regards to the second council of Constantinople? Do you reject all of it or only parts of it?

Couldn’t tell you. But I reject what in the OP.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Only three quarters heretic?

On the second point, where do you stand in regards to the second council of Constantinople? Do you reject all of it or only parts of it?

It's not as if ALL of Christian Belief and Truth can just be "deduced" out by way of a constant dialectic among Christians, in whatever post-Apostolic council.

Personally, I think some Christian doctrines are best to be allowed to reside in the mystery of the reflection they have in the epistemic glass by which we peer into to see them. No human being really has the final word on topics that reflect varying degrees of historical obscurity for everyone alive today.

And the upshot? The upshot is that someone like Dr. Taylor Marshall needs to stop blowing his own horn so hard.

 

[trophy33]

The first point would be acceptable if it was clearly said that she is the mother of His flesh. The Son as such exists from eternity, of course.

Calling somebody heretic or anathema is their vocabulary, but it has no spiritual impact. At least not on the recipient.

 

[jas3]

The first point would be acceptable if it was clearly said that she is the mother of His flesh.

Not even Nestorius himself believed something so basic.

Calling somebody heretic or anathema is their vocabulary, but it has no spiritual impact. At least not on the recipient.

That's vocabulary from the Bible (Titus 3:10, Gal. 1:9), but alright.

 

[trophy33]

Not even Nestorius himself believed something so basic.

Cool.

That's vocabulary from the Bible (Titus 3:10, Gal. 1:9), but alright.

If all Christian sects and cults started to call each other heretics, anathema, antichrists, satans, etc. just because such words are in the Bible, we would be in quite a mess.

 

[jas3]

If all Christian sects and cults started to call each other heretics, anathema, antichrists, satans, etc. just because such words are in the Bible, we would be in quite a mess.

Started? Those terms were in common ecclesiastical use for the first 16 centuries or so within all Christian communions. The usage (as with everything) gets harder to track with the rise of Protestantism in the 16th century, but certainly the early Protestants had no qualms about using the terms. You probably have to go to the 18th century to find people shying away from them in the name of ecumenism.
And this may be a controversial take on an ecumenical forum, but I'd say there was and still is good reason to use those terms to convey the gravity of doctrinal error, and they were successful at doing so until the proliferation of Protestant denominations which has led to indifferentism among many people today. In communions where schism is still recognized for the grave sin that it is, terms like "anathema" and "heretic" do still carry that heavy weight they always have.

 

[The Liturgist]

I agree with the first. I’ll never agree on the other three. So where does that leave me?

In my view that leaves you comfortably within ecumenical creedal and conciliar orthodoxy, since the first one is the main issue of the Council of Ephesus, that the Blessed Virgin Mary, (John 1:1) is the Theotokos, by whom the Word became flesh, who is the human mother who gave birth to the only begotten Son and Word of God, who is with God and is God, and it was through this incarnation including a natural birth that Jesus Christ became fully human and fully God without, and this is the crucial anti-Nestorian, anti-Eutychian tritheist aspect, change, confusion, separation, or division.

That the Blessed Virgin Mary is a perpetual virgin was believed by John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer, among others, but this is frankly not as big of an issue, particularly since the Oriental Orthodox, while believing this doctrine, did not participate in the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.

The Dormition or Assumption is an ancient belief of the Early Church which the Roman Catholic Church only formally made dogma in the 1950s under Pope Pius XII, but which the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have always believed, and there are compelling reasons to believe it, but it is not recorded in Scripture.

The belief in her Immaculate Conception is rejected by the Orthodox because our soteriology allows her to not have personally sinned while still being born under ordinary conditions, and that was only declared dogma by the Roman Catholics in the 19th century.

So in conclusion, I regard you as ecumenically orthodox. I should like to persuade you of the Dormition and the perpetual Virginity, but insofar as you accept the status of St. Mary as being the human mother of God in the person of the Son, the Theotokos, to use the language of the Third Ecumenical Synod in Ephesus, this agrees with the beliefs of Calvin, Luther, Cranmer and all the reformers and all orthodox church Fathers.

 

[The Liturgist]

The first point would be acceptable if it was clearly said that she is the mother of His flesh.

Not acceptable, because that destroys the Incarnation.

In the Incarnation, God became man, his divine nature united hypostatically to our human nature, the two natures united without change, confusion, separation or division.

These four words are agreed to by all mainstream denominations, even the Assyrian Church of the East, often historically called the “Nestorian Church” and one which does venerate Nestorius as a saint, which I disagree with, but otherwise I like the Church of the East.

And what you are doing is dividing the humanity of Jesus Christ from His divinity, in such a way that it actually borders on docetism.