Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How is a church apostolic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

    ok. let me out it this way.

    do humans give birth to persons or natures?
    Humans with a human Father and human Mother give birth to human babies with one nature, that of a human.

    Mary gave birth to a human baby with two natures, because the Holy Spirit came over her, and not a human father.

    Mary is the mother of Jesus the Man, God is the Father of Jesus in His divinity. Mary has NOTHING to do with His divinity. She played no part in Him being divine. She is not the Mother of the divine.

    You now sit with the option to either accept that she was fully human, and not divine, and God is fully God and not human, thereby giving Jesus His human and divine natures.
    Or you can force divinity onto her and then you have to explain where Jesus' human nature came from.
    Previously JCiL.
    Rom 8:38 -39 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,
    nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

      ok. let me out it this way.

      do humans give birth to persons or natures?
      what did Mary contribute to the Divinity of Jesus (Why Jesus is God) ?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tester View Post

        Can you give some names of those who are part of this "infallible living authority":

        when I check their understanding of infallible Church doctrines ; there should be an absolute guarantee there will be no contradictions in their teachings:

        Right?
        Organ sharing of infallibility:

        -the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (ordinary magisterium)
        -ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope
        -and the pope himself separately (ex-cathedral pronouncements)

        you are correct, they should not contradict each other.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Balshan View Post
          The RCC likes to see itself as apostolic
          First of all it is not "RCC". It is the Catholic Church.

          Second of all, today the only two churches that are truly apostolic are the Orthodox and the Catholic. They are the only two who have maintained a valid sacrament of holy orders, the mystical manner through the laying on of hands that apostolic authority was passed down from the beginning.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tester View Post

            what did Mary contribute to the Divinity of Jesus (Why Jesus is God) ?
            I don't thinks so. Mary was the mother of Jesus in the sense that she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body,

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

              I don't thinks so. Mary was the mother of Jesus in the sense that she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body,
              Wrong.

              QUOTE: Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension not only of what this particular title of Mary signifies but also of who Jesus was—and of what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

              A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses, because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).

              Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism.

              Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

              To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

              The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the “Nestorian” church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

              Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

              The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary.

              Read the church fathers comments: https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-mother-of-god

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post

                Wrong.

                QUOTE: Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension not only of what this particular title of Mary signifies but also of who Jesus was—and of what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

                A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses, because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).

                Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism.

                Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

                To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

                The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the “Nestorian” church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

                Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

                The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary.

                Read the church fathers comments: https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-mother-of-god
                The Council of Ephesus in AD 431, I say again, the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, decreed that Mary is the Theotokos because her son Jesus is both God and man: one divine person with two natures (divine and human).

                The title of Mother of God (Greek: Μήτηρ (του) Θεοῦ) or God Bearer, is most often used in English, largely due to the lack of a satisfactory equivalent of the Greek τόκος. Because of that the title is often left untranslated, and she is called "Theotokos".

                Mary "bore" God (Jesus) in her womb so she is the God Bearer, Mother of God.

                This is the belief of almost all Christians, Catholic and Orthodox. Only a tiny fringe reject it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

                  Organ sharing of infallibility:

                  -the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (ordinary magisterium)
                  -ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope
                  -and the pope himself separately (ex-cathedral pronouncements)

                  you are correct, they should not contradict each other.
                  There are contradictions everywhere among the faithful, knowledgeable , and Church loving Cardinals and Bishops
                  PRO-Catholic news are filled with examples.

                  How do resolve that fact?

                  I do not believe you can be that oblivious to the ongoing disagreements among Cardinals and Bishops on their interpretations Catholic doctrines.

                  so i am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you DO KNOW of these conflicting disagreements.
                  Last edited by tester; 03-27-2020, 12:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Braam View Post

                    Humans with a human Father and human Mother give birth to human babies with one nature, that of a human.

                    Mary gave birth to a human baby with two natures, because the Holy Spirit came over her, and not a human father.

                    Mary is the mother of Jesus the Man, God is the Father of Jesus in His divinity. Mary has NOTHING to do with His divinity. She played no part in Him being divine. She is not the Mother of the divine.

                    You now sit with the option to either accept that she was fully human, and not divine, and God is fully God and not human, thereby giving Jesus His human and divine natures.
                    Or you can force divinity onto her and then you have to explain where Jesus' human nature came from.
                    Jesus is a divine person with two natures, human and divine. This two natures are inseparable and doing so is a christological heresy. A woman gives birth to a person not to natures. Mary carried and gave birth to a divine person and this divine person is God, the second person of the blessed trinity. This is why Mary is the mother of God and there is no other way around it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

                      Jesus is a divine person with two natures, human and divine. This two natures are inseparable and doing so is a christological heresy. A woman gives birth to a person not to natures. Mary carried and gave birth to a divine person and this divine person is God, the second person of the blessed trinity. This is why Mary is the mother of God and there is no other way around it.
                      Well put. Totally correct.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post

                        Well put. Totally correct.
                        are these statements totally correct?

                        Christ was the Son of God without a mother.
                        Christ was the Son of God before Mary was born,
                        Christ was the Son of God 1000s of years before before Mary was born,
                        Mary had no role in Christ being the Son of God.
                        Christ was the Son of God without any involvement from Mary.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post

                          Wrong.

                          QUOTE: Fundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension not only of what this particular title of Mary signifies but also of who Jesus was—and of what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine.

                          A woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses, because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).

                          Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism.

                          Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

                          To avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God.

                          The Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the “Nestorian” church has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do.

                          Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

                          The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and the following passages witness to their lively recognition of the sacred truth and great gift of divine maternity that was bestowed upon Mary.

                          Read the church fathers comments: https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-mother-of-god
                          You misunderstood my post. I was responding to this post that implies we cannot call Mary the mother of God since she did not contribute to his divinity.

                          Originally posted by tester View Post
                          what did Mary contribute to the Divinity of Jesus (Why Jesus is God) ?

                          And I replied.... I don't thinks so. Mary was the mother of Jesus in the sense that she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body,

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tester View Post
                            There are contradictions everywhere among the faithful, knowledgeable , and Church loving Cardinals and Bishops
                            PRO-Catholic news are filled with examples.

                            How do resolve that fact?

                            I do not believe you can be that oblivious to the ongoing disagreements among Cardinals and Bishops on their interpretations Catholic doctrines.

                            so i am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you DO KNOW of these conflicting disagreements.
                            These seeming contradictions to you are their personal opinions, not the church's infallible proclamation.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post
                              You misunderstood my post. I was responding to this post that implies we cannot call Mary the mother of God since she did not contribute to his divinity.
                              My mistake

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trump Gurl View Post

                                First of all it is not "RCC". It is the Catholic Church.

                                Second of all, today the only two churches that are truly apostolic are the Orthodox and the Catholic. They are the only two who have maintained a valid sacrament of holy orders, the mystical manner through the laying on of hands that apostolic authority was passed down from the beginning.
                                Known for centuries as the Roman Catholic Church, last time this discussion happened pictures were posted of churches calling themselves RCC.

                                Second point that is a log of hogwash as your church wouldn't know an apostle if it fell over them. This point also has been done to death. It does not have a continuous line of succession and it does not follow the instructions laid down by the apostles eg expel sexual sinners, leaders should have one wife, best of all leaders should have a good reputation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X