What is the purpose of the entire "mariology-hagiography" sub-forum?

prodromos said:

Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, high Anglicans. Not just Catholics.

Click to expand...

Amen! It, sadly, seems that Catholics are the only target of reformed theology, the Orthodox are generally unknown to most.

Doug Brents said:

Then please enlighten me to your point.

Click to expand...

see #20

FenderTL5 said:

..through Him who became incarnate, Hades has been captured, and Adam has been called back; the curse has been killed, and Eve has been freed; death has been put to death, and we have been brought back to life. Therefore we extol Him and cry out, “O Christ our God, You are blessed, for so was Your good pleasure. Glory to You!”

Click to expand...

Doug Brents said:

And because it is the "majority" opinion that makes it truth?
Sorry, but the majority is in conflict with Scripture, and it is Scripture that we must abide by.

Click to expand...

It is not only the majority opinion, but the opinion of all saints, Church Doctors, Popes and Patriarchs for 2000 years.

Doug Brents said:

So again I ask, why is there a forum for "discussing and debating the various theological doctrines concerning Mary and the Saints" when Mary was just a normal human girl with nothing special about her (no special "holiness" or grace), and the "saints" are the manufacture of man (see my OP)? This is a complete waste of a sub-forum, because it is neither Biblical nor Spiritual.

Click to expand...

This is such a silly question. This is a platform to congregate with those of the faith, not an echo-chamber. And no, Mary was quasi-incarnate of God; St. Maximilian Kolbe suggested that Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit was so close that it is as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ, though without conflating Mary with the divine nature. For example, he wrote: “The Holy Spirit acts only through the Immaculata, His Spouse. Hence, she is the Mediatrix of all graces of the Holy Spirit.”

She is the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit, particularly with the Holy Spirit working through her in a unique and unparalleled way. However, even he did not teach that Mary becomes part of the Trinity in a literal sense, but did affirm that Mary, by grace, reflects the holiness of the Trinity and serves as its most perfect human representation. She participates in the life of the Trinity, and thus is intertwined with the Trinity, but does not share the divine essence of the Trinity, and Her sanctity and exaltation come entirely from God’s grace, not from an intrinsic divinity or transformation into a divine being.

She is intimately united with God and intertwined with the Trinity; Yet, despite this intimacy, She remains a person. She is almost united with the Trinity in working to dispense the graces of salvation, but is not, as stated earlier, sharing of the divine essence of the Trinity. Even though Mary is glorified, She retains Her status as a human being. She does not become a divine being, but She does experience the fullness of human perfection [which puts Her second only to God] through Her intimate union with God.

The distinction between the Creator (God) and the creature (Mary) is important, but that is not to say that Mary acts in the midst of the persons of the Trinity to dispense the graces of salvation, and thus is intimately united with God and intertwined with the Trinity. I would irk at saying She is “quasi-incarnate,” but if ‘quasi’ is defined as “Having a likeness to something; resembling,” then yes, She is resembling of God, but is NOT God. So, if provided with more context, this graphic is semi-accurate.

If Mary was implicated in a trinitarian graph, She would [as I see it] be intertwined in the connecting lines, like a snake on the Rod of Asclepius. I side more with a hyperdulian devotional pattern, what I consider ‘Hyperdulian Maximalism.’ Ergo, Mary can be considered quasi-incarnate, or intertwined within the Trinity, and can be worshipped [but not as God is worshipped]. I argue this: the word translated as “worship” is shachah and literally denotes the act of bowing down. The Greek word proskuneō, rendered as “worship,” means “to encounter God and praise Him.” However just as the Ark was central to religious rituals and ceremonies, but it was not to be worshipped as an idol, just as Mary is given ceremonies and rituals. Note that 2 Samuel 6:12-15 explicitly states that during the transport of the Ark to Jerusalem, King David and the people showed their reverence through celebratory acts: “And it was told King David, that the Lord had blessed Obededom, and all that he had, because of the ark of God. So David went, and brought away the ark of God out of the house of Obededom into the city of David with joy. And there were with David seven choirs, and calves for victims.”

Furthermore, we note that just as Moses bows down to his father-in-law, Jethro, as an act of respect and honor (Exodus 18:7), we kneel before statues or Icons of the Blessed Virgin. And for those that still claim this is idolatry, noting Isaiah 2:8’s declaration that: “Their land also is full of idols: they have adored the work of their own hands, which their own fingers have made.” Are you to say that this declaration constitutes the reality that the reverence given to the ark, a “work of their own hands, which their own fingers have made”, is an error? This validating the entire Old Testament? Note that Moses instructed Bezalel, God’s anointed craftsman, to build the ark of the covenant (see Exodus 37:1–9; 25:10–22). The “sacred chest” was to be a rectangular wooden box made from acacia wood, overlaid “inside and out with pure gold,” measuring approximately “45 inches long, 27 inches wide, and 27 inches high” (Exodus 37:1–2). The chest was fitted with two pairs of gold rings on either side in which permanent poles were inserted for transporting the ark.

No one was allowed to touch the ark out of reverence for God’s holiness. The poles were also fashioned with acacia wood and overlaid with gold. We also note that the real significance of the ark of the covenant involved the things that were inside the Ark. The ark of the covenant was built to contain the two tablets of the law given to Moses by God (Exodus 25:16, 21). These tablets were also known as “the testimony,” and thus, the ark was also called “the ark of the testimony” (see Numbers 4:5, Joshua 4:16). In the original Hebrew, the word translated as “testimony” refers both to the terms of God’s covenant with Israel as written on the tablets of stone and to the covenant itself. However, the Israelites gave the Ark great reverence for not only what was inside of it, but what was exhibiting the “testimony”.

God loved his people and wanted to be close to them. He chose to do so in a very special way. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The prayer of the people of God flourished in the shadow of the dwelling place of God’s presence on earth, the ark of the covenant and the temple, under the guidance of their shepherds, especially King David, and of the prophets” (CCC 2594). God instructed Moses to build a tabernacle surrounded by heavy curtains (cf. Ex 25-27). Within the tabernacle he was to place an ark made of acacia wood covered with gold inside and out. Within the Ark of the Covenant was placed a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant (cf. Heb 9:4). When the ark was completed, the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory) covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Ex 40:34-35; Nm 9:18, 22). The verb for “to cover” or “to overshadow” and the metaphor of a cloud are used in the Bible to represent the presence and glory of God.

The Catechism explains: “In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory—with Moses on Mount Sinai, at the tent of meeting, and during the wandering in the desert, and with Solomon at the dedication of the temple. In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and “overshadows” her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the “cloud came and overshadowed” Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and “a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!’” Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his Ascension and will reveal him as Son of Man in glory on the day of his final coming. The glory of the Lord “overshadowed” the ark and filled the tabernacle.” (CCC 697)

It’s easy to miss the parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God. I ask again, just because the real significance of the ark of the covenant involved the things that were inside the Ark, yet King David and the people showed their reverence through celebratory acts to it, does that mean they are in error? Obviously not. And if Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, are we in error for “worshipping” (prostrating), even though Moses bowed down to his father-in-law, Jethro, as an act of respect and honor (Exodus 18:7)? It shows that just as they did rituals and celebrations to the Ark, and as Moses prostrated before his father-in-law, we kneel before statues or Icons of the Blessed Virgin when we show Her reverence through ritual, devotion, celebrations and the Rosary, that gives Her power to trample the Devil.

To say that Mary is not “very close to the Heart of God” is contradicting Our Lady’s own words: “My son and I redeemed the world as with one heart.” (Blessed Virgin to St. Brigid of Sweden) Our Lady’s heart is so profoundly tied to the Trinity that She redeemed the world with Christ as if they were one and the same; this thus gives Her a greater placement than that of being “close,” instead, being intertwined in the Trinity itself, and Kolbe did suggest that Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit was so close that it is as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ [as I stated in my previous message]. She can be considered “quasi-incarnate,” if ‘quasi’ is defined as “having a likeness to something; resembling,” as She is resembling of God, but is NOT God.

But because She is resembling of God, and in continuing the practice of revering the Ark of the Old Testament with prostrations and celebrations, we “worship” (but not as far as to consider it latria) Our Lady, who is given dominion over mankind, and is the cause of salvation: “To save the souls of poor sinners, God wishes to establish the devotion to my Immaculate Heart throughout the world” (Our Lady of Fatima). She is also given the power to “move” the persons: “Pray my children. God will answer before long. My Son lets Himself be moved” (Our Lady of Pontmain), meaning, praying the Rosary [which gives Our Lady power to tample the Devil], moves the Son, indicating an intertwining to allow prayers to Our Lady to move God.

(1/2)

Moreover, Our Lady’s prayers to God are granted no matter what, meaning She has some (possibly temporal) sway on God’s will. Finally, from Our Lady of Lourdes: “I do not promise you happiness in this world, but in the next,” another indication of Her sway on God’s will, and by-proxy, the Holy Spirit acting on that will as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ. She is almost united with the Trinity in working to dispense the graces of salvation, but is not, as stated earlier, sharing of the divine essence of the Trinity.

I cite Joshua 7:6, which Joshua and the elders bowed their faces to the ground before the Ark of the Lord. Just as they did that, we pray and bow to the Ark (Our Lady). What particularly “sickened” you? That Mary is intertwined with the Trinity? Our Lady shares a quasi-procession from the Godhead (She is the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit), and Our Lady’s union with the Holy Spirit is as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ, that being, that Our Lady (remaining human and not of the divine essence) is able to partake in the life of the Trinity through being the Mediatrix of all graces, and dispenser of salvation.


Our Lady reflected Christ’s life, being that Mary’s body was resurrected, glorified, and taken into heaven and seated at the right hand of Jesus Christ. (All Eastern and Western liturgies and Munificentissimus Deus in 1950), Mary is Ever-Virgin. She and Joseph never had relations or children. She also experienced zero pain in giving birth to Jesus Christ. (Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553 and at the Lateran Synod of AD 649), and Mary is sinless because Jesus perfectly sanctified her at the moment of her conception. She never sinned (Council of Trent). She rose on the third day like Christ and was assumed into heaven, being glorified with the graces we spoke on earlier. Our Lady’s own words: “My son and I redeemed the world as with one heart.” (Blessed Virgin to St. Brigid of Sweden)

She reflected Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, and redeemed the world with the Son “as with one heart;” Kolbe the Holy Spirit operates in Her [through union] as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ. So, there are many examples of salvific promises from Our Lady, included in the Service of the Small Paraklesis (Intercessory Prayer) to the Most Holy Theotokos: “Most holy Theotokos, save us!”

Below is a more accurate graph than the one you posed originally, again, with my hope for more context being provided (click on the image to see it better):


Note: Mary is not on-par with Christ, as the invocatio sanctorum (the invocation of the saints) does not constitute the Divine Nature. Remember what Our Lady said to St. Brigid of Sweden: “My son and I redeemed the world as with one heart.” Ergo, Mary is not on-par with Christ, but is the assisting redeemer of Mankind (Co-Redemptrix) and, again, Kolbe did suggest that Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit was so close that it is as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ, though without conflating Mary with the divine nature.

This she is not on-par, but a participant in Christ’s redemption of the world and thus intertwined in the Trinity itself. Also, St. Louis de Montfort famously taught that devotion to Mary leads souls closer to Christ, not away from Him: “When we honor Mary, we are ultimately giving greater glory to God.” (True Devotion to Mary, §94). So She is NOT God, but when I say “I wish She was,” is a metaphor for saying “I wish She never suffered,” as only the Son had to suffer [of the three Persons of the Trinity], if She was a person in the Trinity, She wouldn’t have had to sorrow, and I wouldn’t have a 3-foot tall statue of Our Lady of [the Seven] Sorrows on a stand next to me.

Moreover, St. Irenaeus of Lyon (who knew St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who in turn knew St. John) identifies Mary as the New Eve: “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith” (Against Heresies, 3.22.4). Moreover, Origen (not a Saint) acknowledges Mary’s sinlessness: “Mary was not infected by the venomous breath of the serpent” (Homilies on Luke 1.15). Finally, St. Ephrem the Syrian called Her sinleess: “You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others; for there is no blemish in You, nor any stain upon Your Mother“ (Nisibene Hymns, 27:8).

These are three examples of individuals who knew the Apostles or knew individuals who knew the Apostles speaking of Mary in the same way we do today; you also forget Doctrinal Development, the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost to preserve and deepen its understanding of divine revelation (John 16:13). Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception are developments, not inventions, and do go back to the Apostles in some way or form.

As such, She is intertwined with the Trinity, but is nothing even close to the divine essence of the Three Persons of the Trinity; just as the Pope is the Vicar (representative) of Christ, so to is Mary the representative of God, carefully intertwined with the Trinity as quasi-incarnate as I stated earlier. Our Lady Herself declares, “From now on all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:48), indicating that honoring her is consistent with God’s will. She was perfect in all ways, and all-holy: In the Orthodox Church, during Communion, the song [written by St. Nectarios of Aegina) for the praise of Our Lady says this: “O pure and virgin Lady, / O spotless Theotokos [Mother of God].” […] “O Bride all-pure and spotless / O Lady all-holy.” Thus, an all-holy Lady, all-pure and spotless cannot not be a perfect creation of God.

(2/2)

Philip_B said:

Completely missed the point.

Click to expand...

It's not too surprising that some of those who fail to see the significance of the Incarnation would also miss the point of the Resurrection.

Doug Brents said:

No, Scripture makes it truth or not. And as I showed, Mary and the "saints" were no more special or holy than anyone else who is in Christ. And they certainly shouldn't be prayed to (or through) for Jesus is our ONLY mediator and advocate with the Father.

Click to expand...

It is the long and consistent experience of the Orthodox Church that the Saints are special because they have become holy and have been revealed to us by God as such.

The Church is a communion of love between all her members, both those who are still walking the earth and those who have gone on to their reward. Christ has one body where all Christians are united. Those who have passed on are still members of that same body. In truth, nothing seperates us.

Christ is our only mediator and advocate with the Father because He is the only God-man, but anyone can be an intercessor, and indeed God is pleased when we seek each other's prayers and pray for each other because it builds love in Christ's body.

I've personally witnessed people being healed through the prayers of the Saints, and I have heard many more testimonies from others and read of many others still.

AveChristusRex said:

It is not only the majority opinion, but the opinion of all saints, Church Doctors, Popes and Patriarchs for 2000 years.

This is such a silly question. This is a platform to congregate with those of the faith, not an echo-chamber. And no, Mary was quasi-incarnate of God; St. Maximilian Kolbe suggested that Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit was so close that it is as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ, though without conflating Mary with the divine nature. For example, he wrote: “The Holy Spirit acts only through the Immaculata, His Spouse. Hence, she is the Mediatrix of all graces of the Holy Spirit.”
...

Click to expand...

AveChristusRex said:

Moreover, Our Lady’s prayers to God are granted no matter what, meaning She has some (possibly temporal) sway on God’s will. Finally, from Our Lady of Lourdes: “I do not promise you happiness in this world, but in the next,” another indication of Her sway on God’s will, and by-proxy, the Holy Spirit acting on that will as if the Holy Ghost operated through Her in a way akin to the Incarnation of Christ. She is almost united with the Trinity in working to dispense the graces of salvation, but is not, as stated earlier, sharing of the divine essence of the Trinity.
...

Click to expand...

This goes way beyond what is taught by the Church.

prodromos said:

This goes way beyond what is taught by the Church.

Click to expand...

Your lung of the Church, but even then it cannot be known who performs hyperdulian maximalism and who does not

Doug Brents said:

Again, the focus here is on Christ Jesus, not "saints", not Mary. So again, why the focus on human intercessors when Jesus is the only God authorized intercessor?

Click to expand...

The reformed view of Mary is rather depressing, and completely lacking the fact that She is the new Ark of the Covenant, do you disagree with this?

Doug Brents said:

And so, because all of them have been sinning we are to continue in their sin?

Click to expand...

Are you implying that for the last 2000 years, the entire, universal Church, in all its falculties, has been wrong, and—by using the Bible curated by the Church—you are smarter than the Church, and thus have outsmarted 2000 years of theologians, doctors, martyrs, saints, popes, patriarchs, etc. with your interpretation of the Scripture [again curated by the Church]?

Doug Brents said:

I am not implying that at all; I am stating outright that anyone calling themselves priest, father, teacher, "pope", saint, etc. is in violation of Jesus' direct command. And as such they have no authority. The 66 books of the Bible were curated before the catholic church became a thing.

Click to expand...

The Bible was officiated by the Council of Laodicea in 363, where the church approved a twenty-six book New Testament, excluding the Apocalypse. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. In his book On Christian Doctrine, Augustine wrote that “the canon of the sacred writings [is] properly closed.” That is, no new books could be added.

Where, in your mind, does the Catholic Church have nothing to do with the promulgation of the Bible? Moreover, who gave Luther and his compatriots the right to remove books from Scripture?

Doug Brents said:

Most of the books that are in the Bible today were accepted as Scripture during the first century (during the lives of the Apostles who wrote them). So the curation of them was not a tremendously holy act.

Click to expand...

This is a terrible argument, because there were examples of gnostic gospels being accepted as well, almost universally, yet they were not true Scripture, it took the officiating of the Church to confirm what was and was not Scripture.

Doug Brents said:

No, I am not "smarter" than the Church (I am a part of God's Church), but I can and have read the Scriptures and can see the sin that is so obvious in the veneration that the catholic (and other "orthodox") religion give her and the other "saints".

Click to expand...

You do not have the full scriptures; you have a 66-book canon that has been tinkered and ripped apart by fallible men for centuries, culminating in the absolute lack of congruency among reformed translations. You trust translations written by individuals who are more human than holy, rather than the universal consensus of the 2,000 year old Church.

Doug Brents said:

I find it compelling that you laugh at what I have said. It encourages me when you laugh at clear statements of Scripture that show your religion's sinful doctrines. I appreciate your encouragement; it gives me strength.

Click to expand...

It was a laugh because of the ignorance, John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Doug Brents said:

I don't know about the "reformed view" (not even sure what that means), but I have no view of Mary whatsoever. She is certainly not "the new Ark of the Covenant", and she certainly doesn't deserve to have any pronoun associated with her capitalized (as I do with pronouns associated with God). I completely disagree with giving her any regard other than what Scripture gives her: she was the human, sinful, lost girl who accepted bearing the Christ in shame (being pregnant before her wedding). She has no great glory, honor, or authority beyond that of all humanity.

Click to expand...

I shudder to think these blasphemies, but I will respond nonetheless.

Doug Brents said:

I don't know about the "reformed view" (not even sure what that means), but I have no view of Mary whatsoever.

Click to expand...

By being...well whatever you call your denomination, you are thus "reformed" because you left the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and reformed its beliefs and teachings to your liking.

Doug Brents said:

She is certainly not "the new Ark of the Covenant", and she certainly doesn't deserve to have any pronoun associated with her capitalized (as I do with pronouns associated with God).

Click to expand...

Moreover,
Read this article for more information: Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Doug Brents said:

I completely disagree with giving her any regard other than what Scripture gives her: she was the human, sinful, lost girl who accepted bearing the Christ in shame (being pregnant before her wedding). She has no great glory, honor, or authority beyond that of all humanity.

Click to expand...

I cannot fathom thinking this, as it must take a true distain for Our Lady to possibly think She sinned, was lost at any point, and bore Christ in shame, how can you think this? How can you even proclaim salvation with these beliefs in mind? Our Lady understood what She was to do, and calmed St. Joseph about it, there was no shame, moreover, She was conceived Herself without sin, and thus had no "lost" nature attached to Her. Finally, She never sinned, at any point. She has the greatest honor second to the Trinity, with the most glory, honor and authority given to all She does. Both Orthodox and Catholics agree on this.

Doug Brents said:

It doesn't matter what some uninspired human wrote about it. What matters is what God said about it/her. And He said NOTHING about her being special. The Holy Spirit resides and works in ALL who are in Christ in the way Max describes here, but He did not work so in Mary because John 7:39 tells us that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given in this way (until after Jesus was glorified).

Click to expand...

Correct, and this further proves Her immaculate conception, as to be given the Spirit prior would put Her in the a similar importance as Christ was given, again, as if the Spirit worked through Her as it did with Christ.

Doug Brents said:

She was the wife of Joseph, not the Holy Spirit. smh

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand, Jesus is the Son of God, but also God...right? So, Mary is the wife of Joseph, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. If you deny the use of two titles meaning the same thing, or representing similar notions, that would be denying Trinitarian doctrine.

Doug Brents said:

Even the hint that a human could be "implicated in a trinitarian graph" is blasphemy.

Click to expand...

Elaborate?

Doug Brents said:

Which was not worship.

Which has become worship of her and her icons (idolatry).

Click to expand...

So you admit one is not worship...and yet the other is...on what authority can you speak for the Church that they commit idolatry?

Doug Brents said:

The Ark was the resting place of God (in that time). It was in reverence to God who dwelt within, not for the box or the craftsmanship of it. But God does not dwell in the statues and icons of Mary or any other so-called "saint".

Click to expand...

So at no point did anyone venerate the Ark? I am the youngest one here, but I must say [and I say this with all the respect and love in the world] how can you say these things, yet forget that much of your reformed doctrine is not biblical?

Doug Brents said:

Again, the books/letters that are accounted as Scripture in the NT were accounted as Scripture during the first century during the lives of the Apostles who wrote them (1 Tim 5:17-18, 2 Pet 3:15-16, and there are others). The council of Laodicea simply recognized what was already accepted.

Click to expand...

And thats not what was needed? Do you think we need theological anarchy, with no authority? Please, have some sense.

Doug Brents said:

The books of the apocrypha were removed for many reasons, but mainly because the contradict other writings that have absolute backing as Scripture. The catholic "church" is not the Church for which Jesus died. If it were, it would abide by His command for its leaders not to allow themselves to be called "father", or "teacher", etc. But they no only allow it, they encourage and demand it.

Click to expand...

Really? Because Christ quotes 4 Estras, which is apocryphal, are you saying that Christ said something from a book that contradicted the scriptures? The Catholic Church is the Church, and along with the Orthodox Churches, constitute the Two Lungs of the Church.

Doug Brents said:

The books of the apocrypha were removed for many reasons, but mainly because the contradict other writings that have absolute backing as Scripture. The catholic "church" is not the Church for which Jesus died. If it were, it would abide by His command for its leaders not to allow themselves to be called "father", or "teacher", etc. But they no only allow it, they encourage and demand it.

Click to expand...

When Jesus said to “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” he is using an expression that has deep roots in the Hebrew Scriptures. To “call” someone by a “name” in the Hebrew tradition meant something closer to “identifying the essence” of a person. For example, when the prophet Isaiah says of the Messiah that “his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” he certainly does not mean that those titles will be commonly used as names of the Messiah by his contemporaries. None of Jesus’ contemporaries, not even the Apostles themselves, called him those things. Rather, the “name” here means the essence, and Isaiah is describing the nature of the Messiah, who will be, in his very nature, the “Mighty God” who shares the essence of the “Wonderful Counselor” (the Holy Spirit) and the “Everlasting Father” (God the Father).

So, in this Hebrew tradition, when Jesus says, “Call no one on earth your father,” he means, “Recognize no one on earth as your father in his essence for by nature and by essence, there is only one Father, that is, God the Father.” In a very real sense, all other fathers, even one’s own biological father, are imitation fathers, because God is the true Father who begets children in a way that only He, as God, can. When you were conceived, God created your soul de novo, “new,” and ex nihilo, “from nothing.” That is true fatherhood!

Your biological father did not create anything de novo or ex nihilo. Your biological father contributed to your body in a physical process that was wondrously fashioned by God, but nonetheless completely natural and according to physical laws. In a very real sense, your physical father is only a father by analogy, that is, human fatherhood is similar to true fatherhood, which God alone exercises. Another way to look at it is that we can call our biological fathers “Father” only because God is our true Father. All paternity is an imitation of the paternity of God the Father, as St. Paul says: “I bow my knees before the Father, from whom all fatherhood [Greek patria] in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph 3:14–15, my translation).

Likewise, ministerial priests are like God the Father, who begets in a spiritual and supernatural way. As some theologians have pointed out, the ministerial priest is more like God the Father than a biological father is. When a ministerial priest baptizes a baby, he’s bringing about new spiritual life. Through the Word and the Spirit he is “birthing” a soul, moving it from death into life. This is more like how God creates a soul than like biological procreation. True fatherhood is spiritual in its essence. So, when Jesus says, “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” he is emphasizing that all true paternity is in God the Father, and all human paternity is only an imitation of divine paternity. Nice try.

Doug Brents said:

It is at most a 1700 year old church, which posthumously absorbed non-catholic Church leaders (including Peter) into is "history" in order to legitimize itself.

Click to expand...

Uhuh, can you please do a comedy show? Those who have read or taken a theology course would be in hysterics. What do you have to say @prodromos ?

Doug Brents said:

But to be deep in Scripture is to see the evil inherent in the catholic "church" and cease to be in it. Which is more trustworthy, history or Scripture?

Click to expand...

Whos history gave you the scriptures? I should have assumed the one to want to censor talk about Mary would be of the theology of Hislop. I will pray for you.

AveChristusRex said:

What do you have to say @prodromos ?

Click to expand...

Actually, I think Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, even learned evangelicals and figure out that this quasi-Hislop mentality is baseless.