The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
hydra, Kind, Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub
5606 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 353 guests, and 539 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,760
Posts412,082
Members5,607
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos #419318 06/13/19 08:41 PM
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 15
A
Anaphora Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 15
Will someone in the forum please explain to me why Mother of God, the Holy Theotokos, the God-bearer, is not honored or venerated in most Protestant churches? Protestants believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Why do they not acknowledge the BEARER OF GOD to earth through an earthly Mother? Do they believe that Christ suddenly appeared on Earth directly from heaven? And not born of a Virgin?
To me it is illogical.
Anaphora

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419319 06/14/19 03:11 AM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 328
I
Irish_Ruthenian Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 328
Responding as an X-Baptist Fundamentalist, who was in the kind of churches that just HATED anything Catholic, including and especially veneration of the Theotokos, I would offer the following:

1. They are taught, wrongly, that to honor is the same as to worship.

2. They are profoundly ignorant of Christian history. For them, Jesus ascended into heaven and then......the Protestant Reformation took place. When I was in Fundamentalism, if you had asked me about St. Ignatius, Polycarp, or any of the multitude of other Early Church Fathers, I would have given you that deer in the headlights look.

3. They are taught nothing at all about the sermons and writings of the first pastors of the Church, the Early Fathers. For them, it is the Bible alone that is the whole sum and source of truth. In other words, if it ain't in the Bible, it is wrong.

4. They have been influenced by a number of awful, lying, atrocious books, such as Lorraine Boettner's ROMAN CATHOLICISM and Alexander Hislop's atrocious piece of screed, THE TWO BABYLONS, where he tries to make a connection between Roman Catholic piety and that of pagan Babylon, making the utterly false and ridiculous claim that our "worship" of Mary comes from and is a continuation of the ancient Babylonian cult worship of Seramis. ROMAN CATHOLICISM's claims were investigated by the publisher and found to be so bad, so ahistorical, so distorted, that he refused to have further contact with the book (and eventually converted to the Catholic faith). There are also the simplistic JACK CHICK tracts, horrible little packets of outright lies about the apostolic Christian faith which are gobbled up by the simple-minded such as I was. I read all of them and both of the books. To call them garbage is to insult garbage everywhere on the planet.

5. Most Protestant people implicitly trust their pastors and therefore do not take the time or trouble to acquaint themselves with the Early Church Fathers or the wealth of other publications which are available to them, thus they stay in stygian darkness theologically.

6. What turned me around was coming to understand the covenant relationship of God and His Creation, especially mankind. When I came to understand that Mary is the New Eve, and came to understand that therefore, just as Adam and Eve would have been king and queen over Creation, now Jesus and Mary are King and Queen, well, that solved that problem for me. Of course, the real problem here is that Americans have no - absolutely NO - understanding of kingdom and yet we live in a Kingdom - the Kingdom of God. If you don't understand kingdom principles of rulership, how can you understand the position of the queen of the kingdom.

7. Just because Mary bore the Son of God does not make Her special in Fundamentalism. God could have chosen anyone to do that, and they don't see it in the way we do. This again comes from a lack of understanding, as well as total lack of knowledge about Her such as you can find in the non-canonical books which speak of Her. I think it might be the Gospel of Thomas which speaks in more detail about Her being given to the Temple as a consecrated Temple virgin. Again, for these people, it's the Bible alone as the final word, so their ability to learn and understand is deeply truncated.

Those are just a few things that come to my mind.

I remember back when I began to investigate the apostolic faith and came to an understanding not only of Her position in the Covenant of God, but more than that, as Jesus's Mother!! Oooooooooooh!!!! And I had insulted Her when a Fundamentalist. Wow! The first - FIRST - thing I wanted to confess when this got hold of me was that I had done something bad and insulting to Jesus's Mommy. And what man would not deal severely with someone who insulted his mother??? Some of these guys are in for a really, REALLY rude awakening when they meet our Lord and see His Mother seated as Queen at His right hand!!!

Hope that helps.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Irish_Ruthenian] #419320 06/14/19 01:35 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,310
Thomas the Seeker Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,310
Let me offer one slight modification:

Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
Responding as an X-Baptist Fundamentalist, who was in the kind of churches that just HATED anything Catholic, including and especially veneration of the Theotokos, I would offer the following:


2. They are profoundly ignorant of Christian history. For them, Jesus ascended into heaven and the Bible miraculously descended from heaven (in King James English) complete with chapter and verse numbers but minus those troublesome intertestamental books, all of which the people were not permitted to read and then......the Protestant Reformation took place.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Thomas the Seeker] #419321 06/14/19 01:43 PM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 328
I
Irish_Ruthenian Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by Thomas the Seeker
Let me offer one slight modification:

Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
Responding as an X-Baptist Fundamentalist, who was in the kind of churches that just HATED anything Catholic, including and especially veneration of the Theotokos, I would offer the following:


2. They are profoundly ignorant of Christian history. For them, Jesus ascended into heaven and the Bible miraculously descended from heaven (in King James English) complete with chapter and verse numbers but minus those troublesome intertestamental books, all of which the people were not permitted to read and then......the Protestant Reformation took place.




Hahahaha!!! Spot on, Thomas! I quite forgot about the Feast of the Descent of the Holy KJV AV 1611. Thanks for reminding me of that. If I remember correctly, the date of that feast coincides with the Protty celebration of Luther's nailing his 95 objections to the door of the Wittenberg Church. It's a double solemnity!

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419322 06/15/19 05:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,488
Administrator Offline
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,488
Irish Ruthenian: That you choose to refer to other Christians as "Protty" says more about you than it does about them. And what it says is not positive!

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419326 06/24/19 06:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Protestants are taught from an early age to doubt and question all that Catholics do and believe; are constantly reinventing the wheel; every new generation there are profound biblical studies to understand Christianity "original ". In spite of Mary being Theotokos to Martin Luther, you know how it is: Luther perhaps was "Catholic" too much; know how it is, tradition is Catholic stuff, etc, etc. Thus, they do not realize that Marian dogmas are Christocentric, do not realize that Catholics defend Mary's divine motherhood to affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ. They end up proposing an illogical, meaningless theology, when they do not fall into old errors, like Nestorianism (I heard from a Pentecostal pastor one time that the material body of Jesus Christ was just an avatar, something similar to Krishna, "incarnation" of Vishnu).

The difficulty lies in the false understanding they have of Marian veneration, for many Protestants it configures as idolatry; then "Theotokos" coming from a Catholic sounds to Protestant ears as blasphemy, as if Mary were a previous deity or in co-existence with the Holy Trinity. So they need to rescue the original religion and correct the Catholic error by saying that Mary is "Mother of Jesus" and not "Mother of God".

But in more enlightened Protestant circles, which pay close attention to history and the first great councils, the title of Mother of God is not a problem. But this enlightenment is not the rule, it is not uniform; in fact there is confusion, in other circles there are people rejecting the title of Mother of God.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419328 06/24/19 08:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
"in more enlightened Protestant circles"

Let's not be judgmental or triumphalistic with terms like this. Each person has been placed where he is by the Grace of God and His Divine Plan. Church history is full of the polemics of an earlier time and perpetuating them is a constant problem ind the goal of having all Christians come into communion again. It serves no one to use pejorative terms like that which the Administrator called out above.

Bob
Moderator

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: theophan] #419329 06/24/19 09:22 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by theophan
"in more enlightened Protestant circles"

Let's not be judgmental or triumphalistic with terms like this. Each person has been placed where he is by the Grace of God and His Divine Plan. Church history is full of the polemics of an earlier time and perpetuating them is a constant problem ind the goal of having all Christians come into communion again. It serves no one to use pejorative terms like that which the Administrator called out above.

Bob
Moderator

I do not see any triumphalism. It is a real problem and one needs to describe it. There is also confusion and abuse among Catholics, but I have dealt with Protestantism which is the subject of the thread. Moreover, in some countries this is very clear; in South America, for example, there are abysses between the various Protestant denominations, some are much more enlightened than others (Going deeper, there are denominations that are unfortunately pure business, exploit poor people, want them to live in ignorance and it would be against charity to omit).

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419330 06/24/19 10:20 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
Santiago Tarsicio:

Christ is in our midst!!

It is triumphalism on OUR part when we look down on Protestants and judge them by how they differ from us. To use the term "enlightened" shows a triumphalistic attitude. They, from their point of view, see us as far off the original faith.

Yes, their approach to the Theotokos is flawed and makes a big gap in other theology. But they are where they are. Our calling is to faithfully and humbly explain the Truth that as been passed down to us from the Apostles, gently pointing out that "sola Scriptura" is NOT the faith that came out of the Apostolic era. I have read and heard--and was horrified--to hear that Jesus "passed through Mary without taking anything from her, like water passes through a pipe." The explanation went on that Jesus was an original creation having nothing to do with Mary or anyone else--almost an outside creation idea. That's how far some would go to be against the Latin Catholic Church, which is the starting point of rejection for many Protestant bodies.

But nothing here gives us the right to call them "unenlightened."

Bob

Bob

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419331 06/24/19 11:07 PM
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 328
I
Irish_Ruthenian Offline
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 328
It is not being judgmental or triumphalist to use the word "enlightened." What does enlightened mean? It is a way of saying that someone has come into a place of deeper knowledge, or has "seen the light," as one might say. The fact is (and perhaps this is part of the attitude problem I have been accused of having) that Protestant pastors, and especially those in Fundamentalist assemblies, deliberately keep their congregation from knowing about the early history of the Church. To do so would cause massive problems, thus, they are kept in the dark - i.e., without light, or unenlightened.

Can you believe that I was 50 years old, had been in Protestantism for 25 years, and very dedicated at that, and when I encountered knowledgeable Catholics on the Internet, it was the first time I had even heard of men like St. Ignatius, Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, etc? I remember one former Methodist pastor who, on a Catholic convert board, told us that in 4 years of seminary study leading to his ordination, he heard exactly NO - that's ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH - quotes from the Early Fathers of the Church. That, my friends, is not education. That is brainwashing, pure and simple.

The simple fact is that there are people who are 'unenlightened" because they have not been taught. It is not a pejorative, it is simply a statement of fact. They don't know because they have not been taught. Deliberately. Yet many of them have a deep love for Christ within the paradigm they have been given. And when they convert - they make super Orthodox and Catholics!
'

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419332 06/25/19 12:53 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
Christ is in our midst!!

What if we turn the tables? What chance would a Protestant have of engaging us in dialogue about this issue if he insisted that we were caught in the Devil's idolatry on this issue?

IMHO, none. So my point is that we need to avoid language that is inflammatory or derogatory if we wish to speak to our brethren who do not have the faith gift that we have. We still must recognize that the others have a deep love for Christ and are not afraid of publicly speaking of it--something that we in the Apostolic Churches seem not to do; it's not part of how we are taught to operate.

Bob

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: theophan] #419336 06/25/19 11:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 552
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 552
Speaking of language, if I may add a word to the conversation, I feel the phrase "Mother of God" (Mater Dei) which is used prominently in the west, can be misleading and does seem to convey the sense that Mary somehow generates and is prior to God, and so gives umbrage to our Protestant brethren. The Latin phrase for Theotokos is Deipara - God bearer, or the One who bore God - and just might find a more receptive audience among them.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419337 06/26/19 01:32 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
Christ is in our midst!!

The term "Mother of God" was adopted by one of the first Ecumenical Councils. The term predates the adoption of the accepted New Testament canon of Scripture. It is a statement of the Church's theology that is related to who Jesus Christ is. It is actually auxiliary to this latter point. The whole idea of our salvation hinges on getting Jesus Christ right--Who He is. He is God in the flesh. If we don't get Him right, then we actually don't get our salvation right.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: theophan] #419338 06/26/19 05:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by theophan
Santiago Tarsicio:

Christ is in our midst!!

It is triumphalism on OUR part when we look down on Protestants and judge them by how they differ from us. To use the term "enlightened" shows a triumphalistic attitude. They, from their point of view, see us as far off the original faith.

Yes, their approach to the Theotokos is flawed and makes a big gap in other theology. But they are where they are. Our calling is to faithfully and humbly explain the Truth that as been passed down to us from the Apostles, gently pointing out that "sola Scriptura" is NOT the faith that came out of the Apostolic era. I have read and heard--and was horrified--to hear that Jesus "passed through Mary without taking anything from her, like water passes through a pipe." The explanation went on that Jesus was an original creation having nothing to do with Mary or anyone else--almost an outside creation idea. That's how far some would go to be against the Latin Catholic Church, which is the starting point of rejection for many Protestant bodies.

But nothing here gives us the right to call them "unenlightened."

Bob

Bob


Problems that exist and need to be overcome in the Catholic Church also describe them when it is necessary (but they must be resolved in the Church - as Joseph Ratzinger recently said, the solution of founding other churches has been tried in the past, is not a real solution - it did not work, no Christian can say today that everything is wonderful in its denomination) and so I also try to observe and describe things that I see in other denominations. I do not see triumphalism in this (but yes, "enlightened" it may be an inappropriate term depending on the occasion).

But anyway, okay, I'll reflect your guidance, you have more experience than me; I am only a young man with love inflamed by the Church and I also need advice.

Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
It is not being judgmental or triumphalist to use the word "enlightened." What does enlightened mean? It is a way of saying that someone has come into a place of deeper knowledge, or has "seen the light," as one might say. The fact is (and perhaps this is part of the attitude problem I have been accused of having) that Protestant pastors, and especially those in Fundamentalist assemblies, deliberately keep their congregation from knowing about the early history of the Church. To do so would cause massive problems, thus, they are kept in the dark - i.e., without light, or unenlightened.

Can you believe that I was 50 years old, had been in Protestantism for 25 years, and very dedicated at that, and when I encountered knowledgeable Catholics on the Internet, it was the first time I had even heard of men like St. Ignatius, Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, etc? I remember one former Methodist pastor who, on a Catholic convert board, told us that in 4 years of seminary study leading to his ordination, he heard exactly NO - that's ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH - quotes from the Early Fathers of the Church. That, my friends, is not education. That is brainwashing, pure and simple.

The simple fact is that there are people who are 'unenlightened" because they have not been taught. It is not a pejorative, it is simply a statement of fact. They don't know because they have not been taught. Deliberately. Yet many of them have a deep love for Christ within the paradigm they have been given. And when they convert - they make super Orthodox and Catholics!
'


Exactly. Thank you for your testimony. I have already noted this, Christians of some Protestant denominations are shocked when they discover that ancient Christians with proven orthodoxy were quite Catholic. I think there can only be dialogue with anyone who wants to dialogue.

Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

What if we turn the tables? What chance would a Protestant have of engaging us in dialogue about this issue if he insisted that we were caught in the Devil's idolatry on this issue?

IMHO, none. So my point is that we need to avoid language that is inflammatory or derogatory if we wish to speak to our brethren who do not have the faith gift that we have. We still must recognize that the others have a deep love for Christ and are not afraid of publicly speaking of it--something that we in the Apostolic Churches seem not to do; it's not part of how we are taught to operate.

Bob


Oh, I've been called an idolator many times in dialogues, my remark has gone from there. If there was triumphalism, I believe it was not on my part (I was also trampled by sedevacantist Catholics, traditionalist "Thomists", only because I love Pope Francis and Ratzinger - someone who dialoged with Lutherans in particular, by the way).

"If the Church cannot cheat, then neither can man" (said the monsignor Luigi Giussani) - experience doesn’t deceive us.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419339 06/26/19 10:14 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,310
Thomas the Seeker Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,310
To try to bring this topic back to the basics:

Many Protestant hymnals include the hymn "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones"

The second stanza is clearly addressed to the Theotokos and is closely based on the 9th Ode Tin teo....

Quote


2. O higher than the cherubim,
More glorious than the seraphim,
Lead their praises, Alleluia!
Thou Bearer of the eternal Word,
Most gracious, magnify the Lord,
Alleluia! Alleluia!
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!


Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: theophan] #419340 06/27/19 02:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 552
U
Utroque Offline
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 552
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

The term "Mother of God" was adopted by one of the first Ecumenical Councils. The term predates the adoption of the accepted New Testament canon of Scripture. It is a statement of the Church's theology that is related to who Jesus Christ is. It is actually auxiliary to this latter point. The whole idea of our salvation hinges on getting Jesus Christ right--Who He is. He is God in the flesh. If we don't get Him right, then we actually don't get our salvation right.


He is and shall be!

I certainly did not mean to deny or denigrate that beautiful title. Although "Mother of God" is of ancient usage, I do not believe it was used at the Council of Ephesus where Mary was proclaimed "Theotokos" (Deipara, in Latin) in contrast to the Nestorian "Christotokos". My point was that those who might have difficulty with the term, Mater Dei, might find the term Theotokos, prevalent among the Orthodox, more palatable. They could also ponder deeply the significance of Elizabeth's cry to Mary in the Gospel of Luke: "How should the Mother of My Lord come to me?", paralleling King David's cry in 2 Samuel 6:
"How should the Ark of My Lord come to me?" And as David danced before the Ark, the unborn John leapt in his mother's womb in the presence of the Theotokos.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Utroque] #419341 06/27/19 04:12 AM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

The term "Mother of God" was adopted by one of the first Ecumenical Councils. The term predates the adoption of the accepted New Testament canon of Scripture. It is a statement of the Church's theology that is related to who Jesus Christ is. It is actually auxiliary to this latter point. The whole idea of our salvation hinges on getting Jesus Christ right--Who He is. He is God in the flesh. If we don't get Him right, then we actually don't get our salvation right.


He is and shall be!

I certainly did not mean to deny or denigrate that beautiful title. Although "Mother of God" is of ancient usage, I do not believe it was used at the Council of Ephesus where Mary was proclaimed "Theotokos" (Deipara, in Latin) in contrast to the Nestorian "Christotokos". My point was that those who might have difficulty with the term, Mater Dei, might find the term Theotokos, prevalent among the Orthodox, more palatable. They could also ponder deeply the significance of Elizabeth's cry to Mary in the Gospel of Luke: "How should the Mother of My Lord come to me?", paralleling King David's cry in 2 Samuel 6:
"How should the Ark of My Lord come to me?" And as David danced before the Ark, the unborn John leapt in his mother's womb in the presence of the Theotokos.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, the oldest ' Western ' translations of Thetokos were Deipara and Dei Genetrix... Mater Dei would have been more used later, I think (on the other hand, in the gospel when St. Elizabeth salutes Our Lady, she says mother of my lord).

But I don't see where to run away; being Christ totally God and totally man by hypostatic union, the Virgin is truly the Mother of God - it will take a lot of juggling to oppose.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Utroque] #419343 06/27/19 06:32 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by Utroque
... I feel the phrase "Mother of God" (Mater Dei) which is used prominently in the west, can be misleading and does seem to convey the sense that Mary somehow generates and is prior to God, and so gives umbrage to our Protestant brethren.

Originally Posted by Utroque
I certainly did not mean to deny or denigrate that beautiful title. Although "Mother of God" is of ancient usage, ... My point was that those who might have difficulty with the term, Mater Dei, might find the term Theotokos, prevalent among the Orthodox, more palatable.

Consider, however, that in the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, the Ἄξιόν ἐστιν (It is truly proper...), has the phrase μητέρα τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mother of God). Also in iconography, Mary's title is usually the abbreviation ΜΡ ΘΥ, Μήτηρ Θεοῦ, Mother of God.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419349 06/29/19 06:17 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,485
Christ is in our midst!!

The term Mother of God came out of the Christological formulations of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. In defining the answer to the question "Who is Jesus Christ?" and its next question "How does this explain His Saving Passion?" the term Mother of God comes out.

Christ is both God and man; eternal and without beginning and also born in time; He has two natures in one Hypostasis or Person. As God He is eternal and without beginning; as perfect man, He is born of a woman. There is a long theology that others may better lay out, but to deny His humanity throws doubt on whether He died as a man in His Saving Passion. One has only to look at all the old heresies about who He is and what is His nature to see how this all evolved.

The Council of Chalcedon, number 4, is where this was finally defined.

Now for Protestants who deny that anything happened in the Church prior to 1517, this all may be something hard to take. But it goes to show that Sola Scriptura has limits. Nowhere do the Christological definitions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils appear in the New or Old Testaments. The question then becomes "How do we know Who and What Jesus Christ is?" IMHO, without the Tradition that has come to us--of which the final definition of what books would constitute the new Testament has also come--there is no way to say with authority Who Jesus is or how our claim that he is God in the flesh has any more validity than the Islamic claim that He is merely another prophet.

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: theophan] #419375 07/04/19 08:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
S
Santiago Tarsicio Offline
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

The term Mother of God came out of the Christological formulations of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. In defining the answer to the question "Who is Jesus Christ?" and its next question "How does this explain His Saving Passion?" the term Mother of God comes out.

Christ is both God and man; eternal and without beginning and also born in time; He has two natures in one Hypostasis or Person. As God He is eternal and without beginning; as perfect man, He is born of a woman. There is a long theology that others may better lay out, but to deny His humanity throws doubt on whether He died as a man in His Saving Passion. One has only to look at all the old heresies about who He is and what is His nature to see how this all evolved.

The Council of Chalcedon, number 4, is where this was finally defined.

Now for Protestants who deny that anything happened in the Church prior to 1517, this all may be something hard to take. But it goes to show that Sola Scriptura has limits. Nowhere do the Christological definitions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils appear in the New or Old Testaments. The question then becomes "How do we know Who and What Jesus Christ is?" IMHO, without the Tradition that has come to us--of which the final definition of what books would constitute the new Testament has also come--there is no way to say with authority Who Jesus is or how our claim that he is God in the flesh has any more validity than the Islamic claim that He is merely another prophet.


Yes, but some Lutheran may argue that in the Lutheran church for a correct exposition of Sacred Scripture there are the Confessions of Faith and that, therefore, it is no problem for him the divine motherhood of Mary (not by chance that I said earlier that this understanding is not uniform in Protestantism):

The Augsburg Confession:

"Article III: Of the Son of God.

Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in 2] the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and 3] buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."


http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article3


Epitome of the Formula of Concord:

"VIII. The Person of Christ.
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.

9. Therefore the Son of God truly suffered for us, however, according to the property of the human nature which He assumed into the unity of His divine person and made His own, so that He might be able to suffer and be our High Priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20:28: We are purchased with God's blood.

10. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, that is, in deed and truth, exalted according to His human nature to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God, because He [that man] was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in His mother's womb, and His human nature was personally united with the Son of the Highest."


http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php


The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

VIII. The Person of Christ

24: On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.


http://bookofconcord.org/sd-person.php

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419455 09/18/19 04:08 PM
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 6
The Cub Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 6

Much could be said of this.

In short, Protestants are eisegesists; and recoil from anything telling them otherwise. They respect those who practice the same (regardless of whether they agree with their interpretations); and reject anything and anyone that involves the notion of ‘obedience’.
Make no mistake about it: They flee from obedience.

They do not follow Holy Scripture (or even the KJV Book); and:
• delete whole books that present obstacles,
• add words to the text that do not exist, and/or
• pay no attention to text that contradicts or is problematic to their previously-conceived positions.

Simply stated: “They ignore the truth when presented to them.”

To wit (from a recent encounter with a Protestant objecting to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin):
Holy Scripture tells us that it is the will of Almighty God that all people seek to obtain the Truth. Make no mistake about it, God does not care about what makes man feel good (cf. Mt 22:16); but directs man to seek the Truth.

"This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth." (1 Tm 2:3-4)

And then, later in the same letter to Timothy, St. Paul tells us where to find the truth:

“…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1Tm 3:15)

To reiterate: God wants all men to seek and come to the knowledge of truth, and the truth is found in the Church of the Living God. (NB: He did not say that the Holy Bible was the pillar and bulwark of truth, but the Church who wrote and defined the Holy Bible in the Decree of Pope St. Damassus I. Refer to 2nd link provided below.)

We see also that it is Jesus who is guiding His Church on earth from Heaven: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Lk 10:16).

Then in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus made it very clear how the teachings of His Church will be treated by God:

"He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [NB: one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’" (Mt 16:15-19)

Ex cathedra teachings, and much more are discussed in:

Upon this Rock
www.call2holiness.org/UponThisRock/Ron/UponThisRock.htm

Thereafter, Jesus told us to obey His Church:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 18:15-18)

Now, in the previous citation, which Church is Jesus referring to? Whatever Church it is, clearly it would have to be one of unified doctrine, purpose, teaching and guidance. Further, it would have to date back to the days of Jesus.

There is only one Church that can satisfy those requirements, and that is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It certainly does not refer to any Protestant ecclesial community. Protestantism did not arise for another 1,500 years. If one asserts that this citation referred to one of the Protestant ecclesial communities, who could believe that Almighty God expected man to comply with Mt 18:15-18 for 1,500 years without such Protestant ecclesial community being in existence to serve as judge?

If for the simple sake of argument, we assume that Mat 18:15-18 refers to one of the Protestant ecclesial communities, which of the 40,000 – 45,000 would it be? No two of them can agree? And then how many are there within each Protestant ecclesial community who in their Sunday school, bicker on their respective personal interpretations of this verse of Scripture or that verse of Scripture? And then there are the thousands of Protestants each of whom believe they are a ‘religion of one’. Which of them would be the judge contemplated in Mt 18:15-18? Do they judge and obey themselves?

There is only one Church, and that is the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, true God and true man; founded by Jesus upon the Apostles; guided by the Holy Spirit and thus forming the ‘pillar and bulwark of truth’.

Holy Scripture is clear; all are called to obey the Church or be treated as Gentiles AND tax collectors. (NB: He said AND…i.e. a double curse.)

St. Paul added: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:8-9)

Scripture Alone? Is Half the Story Sufficient?
www.call2holiness.org/ScriptureAlone/ScriptureAlone.htm

How We Know That Holy Scripture is Truly the Word of God
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/era-of-peace/conversations/topics/433


The foregoing was rejected completely by the Protestant in question, simply because it interfered with his religion of eisegesis. My experience has been that this is the typical reaction.

My point is that they do not practice belief in Scripture, as they profess. As St. Augustine stated (paraphrased from memory): “If you find anything within Holy Scripture that you do not believe; it is not Holy Scripture that you believe, but yourself.”

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419458 09/21/19 12:58 AM
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 6
The Cub Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 6

“You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” (Jn 5:39-40)

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (Lk 22:19)

“So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (Jn 6:53-58)

Re: Protestantism and the Holy Theotokos [Re: Anaphora] #419636 11/14/19 12:45 PM
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 22
Ecaterina Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 22
I think the lack of interest in Theotokos is something that has been growing in Protestantism. I read Luther did believe in Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity and this makes it impossible for him to have thought she was not special, just a woman God used to get a body. Also Calvin believed in her virginity but Zwigli shifted the attention towards social works as redemption and other Protestant beliefs. Moving attention away from pure theology may have created a need to justify this shift and thus the Modern Theotokos (St. Hannah included) appeared.
Denigrating is easier than defending, so showing Theotokos as "an idol" is an easy type of theology.
It wasn't there at the start. Not with Luther. I could be wrong but....
Otherwise, how do you explain the hymn "Ave Maria" by J.S. Bach who was Lutheran, was he not?

Today some Augustinian Lutherans do read the Rosary, have statues of Virgin Mary in their churches and at the same time define themselves as Protestants.
In the case of Neo-Protestantism (sects) I think they are by nature seeking adepts and conversion is vital to them. In order to get adepts today they find it easier to convert a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox than to convert a Muslim, a Jew or a Hindu, or even an atheist. It's simply more effective to make people doubt what they already believe and twist something there, than to build from scratch with a non-believer. I am sorry if I have offended anyone Neo-Protestant here, but their aggressiveness in spreading their own structures is a fact. And it's also a fact that their dialectics mostly contain "are you sure that God wants us to ___?" (venerate Theotokos, pray to saints, confess to priests, fast etc).

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3