ECT ICON OF THE VIRGIN MARY FROM THE EARLY CHURCH PERIOD

D

Danoh

New member
Luke 1:

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
 
H

HisServant

New member
Cruciform said:
Your source's unsubstantiated speculation simply fails to convince. I'll stick with Paul's NT testimony and the informed conclusions of the vast majority of New Testament scholars throughout Christian history.
Click to expand...

You totally misunderstand Paul's testimony about Luke... nothing in those verses say Luke was of the uncircumcised. Unless you read into it something that isn't there.

Which I would add, is the bread and butter of Catholic Dogma... almost all of it is developed out of the silence of scriptures.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
brewmama said:
LOL! Talk about heresies! The whole point of the title is to affirm that Jesus was both God and man.
Click to expand...
LOL! Go head. SHE has NOTHING to do with Jesus' DEITY

brewmama said:
"The Council of Ephesus decreed, in opposition to those who denied Mary the title Theotokos ("the one who gives birth to God") but called her Christotokos ("the one who gives birth to Christ"), that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human.[5][6] Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary, according to this Catholic doctrine."
Click to expand...
I don't really care about bogus "church councils"..
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Cruciform said:
Your source's unsubstantiated speculation simply fails to convince. I'll stick with Paul's NT testimony and the informed conclusions of the vast majority of New Testament scholars throughout Christian history.
Click to expand...
Of course you'll stick with the wrong answer, it your way.

Once again I have to ask you, why do you think that God would have ALL of the authors of the Bible be Jews/Hebrews EXCEPT FOR ONE?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
HisServant said:
You totally misunderstand Paul's testimony about Luke... nothing in those verses say Luke was of the uncircumcised. Unless you read into it something that isn't there.

Which I would add, is the bread and butter of Catholic Dogma... almost all of it is developed out of the silence of scriptures.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
musterion said:
Many Catholics, including popes, do. So are they merely in error on this point? Is it a disputable matter? Or are they heretical to the point of blasphemy on this point?
Click to expand...

From what I understand, this is not dogma.

"Co-Redemptrix is both a title used by some Roman Catholics of Mary, the mother of Jesus and a theological concept, which refers to Mary's role in the redemption of man. It has always been controversial and has never formed part of the dogma of the Church. The term "Co-redemptrix" refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer his sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind."

"The Roman Catholic view of Co-Redemptrix does not imply that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer. Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process. Also if the Blessed Virgin intercedes for all graces that are given, this is not because God needed her intercession in any way to give them; rather, it “is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator”.

I got this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

In my humble opinion, opinions expressed by typical Protestants here are a distortion and exaggeration on what the official Catholic position is, there is controversy on the subject, even in the Catholic Church, it does not stand up to the charge of actual heresy or blasphemy, and there may be a difference of opinion on this in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and it is actually more of an excuse for Catholic-haters to wax vitriolic, which seems to be a favorite sport here. There are definite differences in dogma between our churches, including the filioque, infallibility and supremacy of the Pope, and other smaller things, but I'm not sure this topic is of huge importance.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
Right Divider said:
Of course you'll stick with the wrong answer, it your way.

Once again I have to ask you, why do you think that God would have ALL of the authors of the Bible be Jews/Hebrews EXCEPT FOR ONE?
Click to expand...

Why on earth not, since the coming of Christ was for the whole world?
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Danoh said:
Luke 1:

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Click to expand...
Reminds me:
"Haily Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: Blessed art thou among women (Lk1:28), and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Lk1:42) Jesus . . ."​
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
brewmama said:
From what I understand, this is not dogma.
Spoiler

"Co-Redemptrix is both a title used by some Roman Catholics of Mary, the mother of Jesus and a theological concept, which refers to Mary's role in the redemption of man. It has always been controversial and has never formed part of the dogma of the Church. The term "Co-redemptrix" refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross, to offer his sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of mankind."

"The Roman Catholic view of Co-Redemptrix does not imply that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer. Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process. Also if the Blessed Virgin intercedes for all graces that are given, this is not because God needed her intercession in any way to give them; rather, it “is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator”.

I got this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

In my humble opinion, opinions expressed by typical Protestants here are a distortion and exaggeration on what the official Catholic position is, there is controversy on the subject, even in the Catholic Church, it does not stand up to the charge of actual heresy or blasphemy, and there may be a difference of opinion on this in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and it is actually more of an excuse for Catholic-haters to wax vitriolic, which seems to be a favorite sport here. There are definite differences in dogma between our churches, including the filioque, infallibility and supremacy of the Pope, and other smaller things, but I'm not sure this topic is of huge importance.
Click to expand...
Pretty good. :up: It was in part due to her consent to the angel of the Lord (Lk1:38) that we are all able now to receive grace; that's another way to look at it. IOW, the plan for our salvation depended upon Mary answering affirmatively and in complete and pure faith to Gabriel; and this, she did.
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Right Divider said:
Go ahead and keep your religion if you like it.

Mary still had NOTHING to do with the DEITY of Christ.

Our redemption in Christ is based SOLELY on what HE did for us.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm going to do whatever I want, just as you shall.

Can we take this as you conceding the point, that it's OK to call her "Mother of God?" (Luke 1:43)
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Nihilo said:
Can we take this as you conceding the point, that it's OK to call her "Mother of God?" (Luke 1:43)
Click to expand...

Luke 1:43
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?​

Mother of my Lord is not the same as mother of God.

All the kings of Judah were called my Lord, so what Elizabeth said is nothing more than what was said by others when they acknowledged Jesus as the true king of Judah, descendant of David:

Matthew 20:30
30 And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.​

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top