Theotokos

How dense are you? Mary is the mother of Jesus but that verse says anyone who does the will of God is the mother and brother of Christ. And Christ even rebukes Mary in this verse. The immaculate woman that Cathodox over glorify.

This post reads like it was written by a Protestant pretending to be one of those weirdo Catholics/Orthodox who believes Mary is coredemptrix (a heretical doctrine not held by any apostolic Church).

lol no. I don't know what your fanfiction Bible says, but no. Mary was Jesus's mother and rebuking her would be a violation of the 5th Commandment. Are you saying Jesus was a sinner?

one of the biggest issues with protestant's is that they read the Bible with a completely modern sense. when Christ calls Mary "Woman", Our Lord isn't being rude or rebuking His Mother, it is a spiritual title found both in the The Protovangelium (Genesis) and Revelation (Woman in the desert, representing the Church).

it is all the more important that "Woman" is addressed in both the Beginning and End of sacred scripture

Modern evangelicals try too hard. Even Calvin and Luther adored the Virgin Mary.

Is Mary the only person aside from Jesus who has not sinned and fallen short of the glory of God in the sense that Paul speaks?

Do you consider doctrines like Mary being the co-redeemer as sign of love?

I don't know about Catholics, but Orthodox don't teach that. She's the mother of God and the means by how came in the flesh.. but no "co-redemptrix". Maybe you should brush up.. or simply shut up, if you're not interested. Bundling the two together is silly.. They're really nothing alike on redemption related matters.

He called John the greatest among men.. and the Orthodox give him angel's wings in icons to signify the heavenly lifestyle he led here on earth. That it was almost inhuman, if you will. But Jesus said even the "least in the kingdom" is greater than John. John was the end of the Prophets, but the kingdom is a new covenant.. so even us poor sinners received blessings he could only point to. And Mary would be the first to receive such blessings. She is Christ's first disciple.

The RCC calls Mary the Co-Redemptrix, a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily think the thought behind it is off.. just the title was foreign to me. As for redemption, I say the Orthodox are different because they have a different concept of "original sin" and don't have a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. And that Mary was graced BY Jesus' birth. Not before him. The Center of Orthodoxy is the Incarnation of Christ. Not the birth of Mary (and not just the death of Christ.. as Protestant thinking would go as well).

"As ligh­t­ning illu­mi­na­tes what is hid­den, so also Christ puri­fies what is hid­den in the nature of things. He puri­fied the Vir­gin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is mani­fest purity in all its power. He purified the Vir­gin, having pre­pa­red Her by the Holy Spi­rit… having been born, He left Her vir­gin. I do not say that Mary became immor­tal, but that being illu­mi­na­ted by grace, She was not dis­tur­bed by sin­ful desi­res" - St. Ephraim

...

Repeat ad nauseum

Protip: filter "theotokos"

Not a Catholic, but they don't even worship Mary. Why do Evangelicals consistently create this strawman, and then "insult" it.. like that's accomplishing anything? All you're doing is insulting your own imagination of some pretend Catholics in your head. Take them at their word. Deal with the reality of Catholics and not the figment of your imagination.

If you actually looked up Catholic/Orthodox history, there was a group that worshipped Mary and it was condemned. The ONE time that a group splintered off and did this in the early church and it condemned it. It was called Collyridianism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyridianism

Incorrect. Mary being coredemptrix is not Catholic dogma; it is heretical.

The real reason evangelicals are so uncomfortable with it is because they destroyed all signs of sacramental worship in their church, and centered their services on "reverence" and scripture. So to them, they don't even know how to differentiate reverence from actual worship. It's one and the same to them.

Doubt

Majority catholic practice is different from nuanced particular catholic theology
Tell me these beliefs/practices aren't common among catholics

This is all besides the fact that the FULL AUTHORITY of the RCC infallibly declared that Mary never sinned, in exact obvious contradiction with Romans 3

Yes. That was a theological decision.
Evangelicalism is inherently anti-sacramental, because salvific grace comes through faith not of works.

Attached: 2f7.jpg (601x508, 93.75K)

Catholic here. No, they are not. I have never seen nor heard any of this* in my parish nor other parishes I have visited, nor even in Catholic abbeys and monasteries.

But this misses the damn point. It does not matter what the majority of Catholics believe, for the Church is not a democracy. Catholic dogma does not propose any of these stupid notions, therefore unless you also wish to attack individual Catholics for their personal sins in conjunction with their personal theological errors, your attacks against the Roman Church are absurd.

As for the Immaculate Conception, it is a doctrine held by many since the very beginning of the faith, not some mere invention of one Roman Bishop. Romans 3 doesn't include Christ under it's "all have sinned," obviously, and nor does it include His Mother.

* There is one exception, that of Mary's queenship, which is totally Scriptural, particularly according to Revelation. 1 Kings 2:19 comes to mind also regarding respect due to the king's mother. Though this doesn't imply a hand in creation, as you seem to suggest.

I'm glad you agree these are absurd
Again I'm not claiming Catholic doctrine at the highest level affirms Mary worship

Why not?
For Christ we have scripture telling us so. How can you assume this for non-divine Mary?

Attached: z149489521.jpg (400x300, 35.5K)

Also, the age of the doctrine doesn't make it true. Arianism is ancient and nominal evangelicals are clueless about avoiding it.

Sacraments aren't works bub.

Technically, if you count people who died as a baby, not really. But she's the only person who has obeyed the will of God without a fail.

Attached: 1.jpg (900x600, 50.47K)

And not only this from Romans 3 but there's more. Much more.

Galatians 3:22 — But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

So precisely those who have been concluded under sin are those that need a savior. In fact scripture tells us that if someone out there was able to save themselves by the law, that faith would be made void.

Romans 4:14-16 — For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed;

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

Because you’re imagining things and building a straw man. Protestants do not hate Mary, they just don’t venerate saints. We’re not walking around saying “Boy doninsure hat Mary!” We just don’t use her as a go-between in prayer.

What is a sacrament

I'll answer my own question
 "a sign/rite which results in God's grace being conveyed to the individual." 

A Catholic might say
“There are seven sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and given to the Church to administer. They are necessary for salvation. The sacraments are the vehicles of grace which they convey.”

Anyone object to this phrasing?

That was rather a mistake

Attached: Sure.jpeg (600x595, 30.85K)

How?

Never heard that ever… in the history of ever. She's the mother of the Son of God. Not the whole Trinity. What in the world?!

She is the mother of Jesus. If Jesus is fully man and fully God, then she is the mother of God.

Yes, mother of God. Not the mother of the Trinity. God is one, but three distinct persons.

Point proven
You're making the exact trinitarian error that causes us to object to "theotokos" terminology. Jesus is one person, the Father is another, the Ghost is another, and they all form the Trinity. Mary is not mother of the ghost or the father.

This is all avoided if you just say "Mary, mother of Jesus"
Same issue with "the Lord's prayer" vs "the model prayer".

Mary the mother of Jesus is completely suitable to us Christians.. but the whole point why we insist phrasing it the other way is people like Arians also could say she was simply "mother of Jesus". Muslims also say the very thing, and give every honorific title imaginable.. but stop short of calling Jesus God. This is why they are heretics.

Don't be afraid of calling her the Mother of God, because it was always meant to defend Jesus himself. Not Mary. That's the Protestant's problem. You're more obsessed with Mary than even the Orthodox teaching, strangely. It was also meant to point and hold up Jesus. And her greatest lesson both Catholic and Orthodox use is the wedding in Cana, when she says to the servants "Do whatever he tells you."

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

Jesus is fully man and fully God, which means Mary is the mother of God.

Correct

I agree that if denying the divinity of Jesus was a more urgent problem in your surrounding culture, mother of God would be more appropriate.
I have no obsession.
I'm an evangelical. There are still some of us posting here believe it or not.

Sorry, I tend to think evangelicals and Protestants are one and the same. I don't mean to offend by calling you a Protestant. I'm just saying this aversion to Mary is usually of that tradition.

But Orthodox are only trying to defend Jesus's divinity, as you can see. And I know we're ultimately on the same page with that. We're all Trinitarian in the end (Praise God!). I don't want to pit myself against Catholics too much either, but I would say even our reverence for the Virgin Mary always includes Jesus as well. She's never alone in icons, for example. It's always her with a grown Jesus (such as at Cana or the Crucifixion) or an infant Jesus in her arms, for example. Never alone in her own right.

Oh no evangelicals are protestant, i was confused how you said "the Protestants problem"

In my experience Protestants don't have any aversion to Mary at all

Well, to be fair, you can be an evangelical Catholic. It can get confusing.

Nope.

Some bedtime reading for you:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/could-mary-be-getting-a-new-title-this-year-44675
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation
catholicplanet.com/CMA/
legatus.org/why-do-catholics-call-mary-co-redemptrix/

Another thing Orthodox actually side with Protestants on (funnily) is that the "Seed" promised to Eve is Jesus. I don't know why or the origins why the RCC taught that it's the Theotokos who crushes the serpent's head. I admit there is contention on the Hebrew gender of "seed"(zera) being masculine or neutral gendered, but the Septuagint is male gendered, and in the Septuagint reading church, was taught as the first message of the Gospel (it's called the Protoevangelium to be exact). But for some reason, Catholics see it as a promise of Mary. So I see why they'd say she is "co-Redemptrix" if this is how early they see mention of her specifically.

That said, at least as early as St. Irenaeus (2nd century), the Seed is Christ.

"He has, therefore, thoroughly recapitulated all things. He has engaged our enemy in battle, both dashing him to pieces – him who had led us captive in Adam in the beginning – and trampling on his head. This you have given in Genesis where God said to the serpent: 'I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall observe your head, and you shall observe his heel'. To explain, ever since that time He who was to be born of the Virgin Woman, according to the likeness of Adam, was heralded as observing the head of the serpent that, namely, is the Offspring of whom the Apostle wrote in his letter to the Galatians· 'The Law of works was enacted until the offspring should come to whom the promise was made.'

Me: pic related

No disrespect to Mary

Attached: 28B22470-B9E6-4B4D-B83C-6D8DB7BD748E.png (1136x640, 884.51K)

Please read "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre to learn more why Catholics believe what they believe.

The New Eve
The New Ark
The Queen Mother
The New Rachel

Because even by a conservative estimate, Mary loved God as her only begotten Son, therefore all the autism about how "there's no one righteous, not one" is pedantic bs. Do you think God would give the honour of bearing the Son to some random? No, she was a very special woman, and uniquely blessed amongst women. Remember, she followed the Christ everywhere he went, she did seek God, from the very beginning.

So bend the knee to the Arc of the New Covenant, it's not idolatry at all to reverence her.

Attached: AntiLogos.jpg (431x322, 27.3K)

What does that have to do with Romans 3?

Jesus literally chose 12 randos as followers, instead of choosing the most "special" from among the men of those times.

Throughout the Bible what we see most is God choosing random people and transforming them into His faithful voice-bearers, from shepherds of sheep to princes of Egypt.

He certainly didn’t choose to be born into the line of David at random…

You are clearly deaf brother;
Romans 3 is St. Paul's commentary on the fact that the whole world stands guilty of sin and that we are justified by faith. So, only faith (and works, but please let's not get into that) justifies us, that is to say, when we truly seek God, it is natural that we depart from sin. We do not of course depart entirely, because we are mere humans.

All that I have related we agree on, correct?

Now let's try to apply this to the case of Mary. Mary is Jesus' mother, Mary loved Jesus as a son and would always follow after him and seek him out (she's a Jewish mother after all, kek). Nevertheless, Jesus is the incarnation of God. Therefore Mary really did love and seek God, from the beginning, else she could not have merited becoming the Mother of God. Thus the Word which the prophets have spoken, and which Paul has repeated viz. "there is no one righteous, not one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks God" plainly Mary does seek God, it's her own Son! The most you can say is that she was fallible to the extent of her comprehension of the divine plan, that is to say, she didn't understand fully, so she is not God, but nevertheless she is perfectly divinized.

Capiche?

I'm not seeing any objection to the point made "Mary was a sinner" that Romans 3 demands. What is it you're intending to argue?

Stop immediately
Once again, the point is proven that Catholics commonly slip into idolatry regarding Mary

Mary was not a sinner. All you're telling me is that you point blank refuse to treat Mary as anything more than a mere mortal, when it is quite clear that she is not. She loves the incarnation with all her heart and strength and mind (because she's his mother). She is the first and model Christian as a result.

You're just stubborn to not understand this.

You are correct. I refuse to accept the divinity of Mary.

And your stark refusal to engage in theological reasoning doesn't count in your favour. No I won't stop immediately, what inquisition are you running where you get to ignore posts when they disprove your fallacies?

That's not what divinized means, but nice strawman. Divinization is the process whereby one becomes Godlike. Mary I am saying is perfectly Godlike, and hence is worthy of veneration.

David's line is special, but that doesn't make Maria any more special than David. It is a line of God's faithful servants.

I'm not refusing to engage reasoning, I'm not finding any coherent reasoning.
As I've asked, what are you intending to argue?

Attached: Screenshot_20190210-182230_Brave.jpg (1439x1165, 360.04K)

Also one thing
By St. George and King Charles the Martyr I hope not.

I am arguing that Mary is first among mortals, worthy of veneration, and saintly in her earthly life.

Attached: Enough.png (456x398, 116.77K)

You've injected yourself into an argument against Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. What are you instead?
Where were you taught divinization can mean something other than "to make divine"? That's the direct meaning of the term.

Ok
You began this by seeming to claim that Mary never sinned by challenging Romans 3 as it applies to her.
You're a very frustrating person.

Divinization or Theosis according to the Eastern Church is the process whereby people become Godlike by participating in either the uncreated energies of God (Eastern) or created, sanctifying grace (Western). This is basic shit, if you're trying to be a "good christian" or whatever y'all call it nowadays, this is what I'm talking about, transforming oneself into a sinless individual (something few complete here on earth, hence purgatory exists to polish off the job.)

Anyway, I was saying it is certainly unlikely that she ever did sin, given that God gave her the job, and how she carried it through (loving the Lord with all her heart, strength and mind, through the incarnation, her only begotten son, whom she had perfect love for).

Do you understand my argument now?

Here's what I'm interested in:

The Bible says "all have sinned"

Where do you read an exception made for Mary?

Psalm 18:23 I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin.

Job 1:8 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job, and that there is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil?”

Job 6:10 Then I should still have consolation and could exult through unremitting pain, because I have not transgressed the commands of the Holy One.

Luke 1:

5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly

not in the above

Yes, none of these say "all have sinned", but Romans 3 does. Are you saying that these contradict it?

if they are blameless, they are sinless, no?

was the Lord lying?

Ummm…. Because Mary followed the great commandment to a letter for starters?

btw, most apostolic churches can definitely explain that St. Paul is using hyperbole, generalization, and other rhetorical skills, because on top of being a great Apostle, he is one of the greatest writers and orators the world and the Church has ever known.

that you are undone by your literalist reading is of no unconcern to most of historical christendom

He was wrong.

I would point out even St. John Chrysostom commented that St. Mary at least might've sinned and had a little vanity, in the instance when Jesus returned to Nazareth and the crowds flocked to him. And his mother sent messengers to say his family was waiting for him. St. John said this might've been a small vanity on her part, for not waiting, for drawing attention to herself.

But he's just one Church father. Take it as you will.

I've never seen the term "divination" used for theosis, but I'm not one to tear apart word usage if that is what is meant. Although I would point out that theosis is still a grace. And the only "Godlike" part is in that. It is right to capitalize it as "Godlike". Rather than lower g "godlike". It is only possible through Christ and the Resurrection. Secondly, Theosis is for Eternity. There is no final stage or "beatific vision" endgoal like in Catholicism. We will always be learning God. And the Virgin Mary is Jesus first disciple, and would be the first of us with this grace.. and should be honored. But she is not divine in her own right.

No, he wasn't lying. All these men quoted were blameless, but not always. They all sinned at some point because the Bible tells us so.
Especially for David in psalm 18, we have numerous recorded sins.

Here's a quiz: how was Abraham counted righteous? Did he live without ever sinning?

All we like sheep have gone astray. None of these verses contradict God's declaration that everybody sins.

I said "read" because I want you to find it in the Bible

Bah.. I edited that.. because I messed up the last sentence.

St. John could be wrong or not. I'm just saying the early Church never taught it like modern Catholics do unanimously.

Lord I hope not, grave sin
Divinization is the Latin term used for the same. CS Lewis also teaches that God is trying to turn us into a perfectly polished mirror reflecting his Grace. Based on what I take to be true of Mary, I think she was a perfect mirror to God her entire life.

Nah, that's just a Jewish mom, can't be helped

David we know, but what of Zechariah and Job? God tells us they are blameless, you contradict Him, why?

It's actually irrelevant to me, you're the one using St. Paul's words to contradict the Tradition.

Of course it does, it pronounces they are blameless, and have not transgressed the commands of the Holy One.

Meant for

Np, sorry about the deletion/reposting.

You could be on to something about Jewish mothers. Heh

Lol now you're getting it

All have sinned, so did Jesus Christ sin?

The very relevant answer to the quiz is faith
Romans 4:3 KJV — For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

No, and the Bible makes specific exception
2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV — For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Ok, but I don't need much evidence, all I need is to prove that Mary loved her son Jesus with all her heart and strength and mind, like a regular mother. Since the Trinity is in unity, merely loving the Son directly is enough to prove complete love of God, and hence sinlessness.

So do you really need me to search the Bible to find all of the clear testimony to the effect that St Mary loved Jesus?

Yeah, my mistake, she clearly wasn't all that great, I should begome IFB

oh, so are we all sinless on account of our faith?

It also made specific exception for Job and Zechariah, and to whom else would this exception extend? If you're willing to cede that St. Paul did not mean all, then you must cede that not all have sinned, and he was speaking rhetorically.

Combine this with the Church's ability to "bind and loose on Heaven and Earth", and the idea of the Immaculate Conception is palatable, no?

Yes
Even though we have sinned, we are seen righteous just like Abraham on account of our faith.

No it doesn't. These statements are not contradictory.
Even if that were your argument, Mary isn't on the list.
No

No, you need to find evidence in the affirmative that she never sinned, not any examples of her being a God-fearer, blessed, loving etc.
Your logic doesn't carry.

This only exists because of an equally unnecessary perspective on what original sin even is.

And by making her pure before Christ, without Christ.. you're making his whole purpose meaningless. If God wanted to do that, he could have done it to everyone instantly as well. But his plan of grace and renewal was through Christ first. And her purity and graces were through Christ:

"As ligh­t­ning illu­mi­na­tes what is hid­den, so also Christ puri­fies what is hid­den in the nature of things. He puri­fied the Vir­gin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is mani­fest purity in all its power. He puri­fied the Vir­gin, having pre­pa­red Her by the Holy Spi­rit… having been born, He left Her vir­gin. I do not say that Mary became immor­tal, but that being illu­mi­na­ted by grace, She was not dis­tur­bed by sin­ful desi­res" - St. Ephraim

being righteous is one thing, being sinless is another. all have sinned, right?

They are contradictory, because your proof-texting of them is incorrect. All have not sinned, according to the Bible itself. Elizabeth, Zechariah, Jesus Christ, etc, all have this privilege by your reasoning.

She doesn't need to be. The Church has the ability to bind and loose on Heaven and Earth, and your entire reasoning for saying Mary sinned cannot even be defended by your own reasoning!

You IFB folks are intellectually disingenuous.

She's pure on account of being the Mother of Christ, bub. If Christ is the first-born of all creatures, where would the Mother of all first-born be?

No wonder She never makes an appearance for your church.

Even by purely/historically Protestant terms, Abraham's faith was more than just belief. Read Keirkegaard. I'm not a Protestant, but I kind of like Fear and Trembling, for the nerve-wracking, horrifying narrative of what Abraham went through for his "faith" in his attempt to sacrifice Isaac. That isn't mere belief. That's literally… everything.

No, I'm talking to a brick, I've laid out my theological argument in explicit detail. Please challenge it.
Do you need a scriptural reference to use your head for more than a bookmark? Genuine ask

There is nothing more historically protestant than sola fide

You've presented some extrabiblical reasoning. As I've stated many times, I'm only interested in a biblical argument. That means hermeneutics.
If you are in contest with what the Bible says, you are wrong. 2 Tim 3:16.

She doesn't need to. They have the same faith as ever. The Catholic Mary apparitions keep magically adjusting to whatever the Vatican is currently pushing. It's obviously a propaganda job. Now she's pushing ecumenism and Vatican 2 in recent apparitions. What next?

Why?

I'm not IFB
You are the one calling the God a liar when he says everyone is a sinner. That's a false gospel.

that's the whole point of the gospel

Or, She's authentic, and the remnant of Her seed shall be saved.

One can only imagine how mythically powerful the Catholic Church has to be to churn almost 2,000 years worth of apparitions! Deny it at your own risk.

You just admitted that St. Paul was using a generalization, you cannot step back and suddenly hound me for your own spurious reasoning.

Liar, there is no such thing as Once Saved Always Saved, and Faith alone has never been the sole metric of salvation.

1. If Jesus Christ will turn away those cry "Lord, Lord, we have exorcised in your name!", then even those with faith in Him will be turned away for other reasons.

2. The Jews themselves attempted to exorcise in the name of Christ, and were beaten by demons. They obviously lacked faith!

Combine the two, and then BEGOME CATHOLIC.

I never admitted Paul was generalizing because he wasn't. He was making an exhaustive statement with implied exception for Jesus, the God-man.
He uses repetition and cites Ecclesiastes to be explicit that absolutely everyone has sinned

catholics are truly NPCs with no capacity for critical thinking