A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[JoeT]

If you imagine such implications then you have not understood my response.

You had said Christ's human nature had been "healed at the moment of conception". Imagine the implications of Him ever having a sick human nature. One would need to say their God was innately sick)

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

You had said Christ's human nature had been "healed at the moment of conception". Imagine the implications of Him ever having a sick human nature. One need to say their God was innately sick!

JoeT

The moment He took on our flesh, it was healed. He did not have flesh before that moment so He could not have previously had a fallen human nature. Honestly, you just want to find fault so you interpret what I post in a distorted manner. Perhaps you could ask for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions where you also throw your Eastern Catholic brethren under the bus.

 

[JoeT]

The moment He took on our flesh, it was healed. He did not have flesh before that moment so He could not have previously had a fallen human nature. Honestly, you just want to find fault so you interpret what I post in a distorted manner. Perhaps you could ask for clarification rather than jumping to conclusions where you also throw your Eastern Catholic brethren under the bus.

What is innately evil about the human nature? And if it were how does God heal God? Jesus is just like us in every way except sin, original sin or actual sin. We inherit original sin being 'born of woman', however being born of woman who is justified, right with God, i.e. righteous, Christ only inherits Mary's righteousness, she was uniquely and singularity graced at conception.

Your proposition is being restated here, how have I "jumped to conclusions"? You proposed clearly that God 'was' sick and needed to be healed, became whole. Christ's nature is uniquely and inseparably joined to the nature of God and the nature of man without mixing, mingling or confusion. "Healing" the human Christ would therefore entail "healing" the God Christ.

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

What is innately evil about the human nature?

Strawman. I've never suggested or implied any such thing.

And if it were how does God heal God?

More straw.

Jesus is just like us in every way except sin, original sin or actual sin. We inherit original sin being 'born of woman', however being born of woman who is justified, right with God, i.e. righteous, Christ only inherits Mary's righteousness, she was uniquely and singularity graced at conception.

This is the position of the Latin Church. As I have already pointed out it is circular. If Mary can be uniquely graced at her conception then Christ can be too, thus it is not necessary for Christ to be born of a woman without "original sin" in order not to inherit the same.

Your proposition is being restated here, how have I "jumped to conclusions"? You proposed clearly that God 'was' sick and needed to be healed, became whole.

I have done no such thing. You are either deluded or delibrately lying. I see no point in continuing this conversation when you refuse correction.
Christ's nature is uniquely and inseparably joined to the nature of God and the nature of man without mixing, mingling or confusion. "Healing" the human Christ would therefore entail "healing" the God Christ.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to waste time restating my position since you continue to misrepresent it.

 

[JoeT]

Strawman. I've never suggested or implied any such thing.

More straw.

Didn't you say "The flesh that Christ assumed from His mother was instantly healed at the moment of His conception"? If one is healed, then doesn't that mean he is or has been sick? How is that a "strawman"? You are implying there is something wrong with the flesh of Christ which was "full of grace and truth," the "Logos".

This is the position of the Latin Church. As I have already pointed out it is circular. If Mary can be uniquely graced at her conception then Christ can be too, thus it is not necessary for Christ to be born of a woman without "original sin" in order not to inherit the same.

There is nothing circular about it, it's God's plan to redeem His creation and Mary is an essential element in that plan. According to prophecy Christ must be born of woman, Hebrews tells us that Christ is just like us in every way except sin. If he is just like us Jesus is conceived and born 'just like us'. In order to be mankind's mediator for man He must be wholly human as well as wholly Divine. What ever we say of the God/man's, then humanity we can say of His Divinity and vice versa, whatever we say of His Divinity we can say of His humanity - without mixing, mingling or confusion. Hence if we say Jesus Christ was 'healed' of His humanity then He must have been 'healed' in His Divinity - a pure and simple oxymoron.

The personification of human life starts at conception. The male role in procreation merely delivers the 'spark of life' - nothing more. This is the sole function of the male in creating new human life. No genetic material remains with the embryo. The 'spark' starts the generative division of cells forming the child from a single cell of the mother's flesh. Eventually it forms a wholly individual rational being from a single embryo based on its DNA map, body and soul. The resulting life is literally the flesh of its mother. The child's veins are filled with blood generated within child; there is no transfer of blood from the mother to the child.

The incarnate Christ, being wholly human as well as God, is begotten in this same way, thus not made, just like us in every way. God provided the spark of life generating Life, that life was the Personification of His Wisdom (the Logos) perfectly joined with flesh of Mary. That flesh was perfectly human in every way without modifying, adjusting, or healing. In Christ God and man are inexplicably joined in a perfect unity just as we will be joined in a perfect union with God. As Christ is the Personification of 'Life', the blood of the Christ Child is the blood of eternal life. The Person of Christ found in Mary is filled with the living grace, hence Mary is most literally “full of Grace”.

I have done no such thing. You are either deluded or deliberately lying. I see no point in continuing this conversation when you refuse correction.

Christ's nature is uniquely and inseparably joined to the nature of God and the nature of man without mixing, mingling or confusion. "Healing" the human Christ would therefore entail "healing" the God Christ.

I'm not going to waste time restating my position since you continue to misrepresent it.

You don't need to waste time. I am quite real and without guile, there is no need for correction.

By saying Christ is placed in a balloon inside Mary’s womb or by saying God healed and flesh molded into Christ we need to contend with the absurdity that god created God and placed His newly created god into the womb of a woman. Instead of being the 'begotten' son as all humans. Thereby Jesus becomes a Mafia equivalent of "a made man" - not born of woman - and His mother becomes a surrogate. Christ was begotten as all humans, with the initial 'spark of life'; one of God's seminal mysteries.

Hence, we find that Mary bearing Life Itself and must, by the will of God, have been immaculate. Life and death, good and evil cannot both exist in one body and enter heaven [Matthew 5:20]. Mary then becomes like the Ark of Noa, bearing Life and at the same time the Ark of the New Covenat. Simultaneously she is the Ark of Moses carrying Divine Life and the New Covenant.


JoeT

 

[prodromos]

Didn't you say "The flesh that Christ assumed from His mother was instantly healed at the moment of His conception"?

Yes.

If one is healed, then doesn't that mean he is or has been sick?

How did you make the jump from "the flesh", to "the one"? Flesh is not personhood. The ovum in Mary's womb was the same flesh we have all shared in since the fall. The instant it was fertilised and united to the second person of the Holy Trinity it was healed of the fallen nature.

How is that a "strawman"? You are implying there is something wrong with the flesh of Christ which was "full of grace and truth," the "Logos"

Not once have I implied such a thing. That is your own misinterpretation of my words.

 

[prodromos]

The personification of human life starts at conception. The male role in procreation merely delivers the 'spark of life' - nothing more. This is the sole function of the male in creating new human life. No genetic material remains with the embryo.

This is simply false.

 

[JoeT]

Yes.

How did you make the jump from "the flesh", to "the one"?

I didn't jump to any conclusion, you said, "The flesh that Christ assumed from His mother was instantly healed at the moment of His conception". Seems straight forward to me.

Flesh is not person-hood.

A human fetus (body and soul) is a person. Mothers don't bear flesh, they bear persons.

The ovum in Mary's womb was the same flesh we have all shared in since the fall. The instant it was fertilized and united to the second person of the Holy Trinity it was healed of the fallen nature.

"The flesh isn't what is fallen. It is the person that inherits original sign. Unless the mother is with original justice."

Not once have I implied such a thing. That is your own misinterpretation of my words.[/QUOTE]

You did indeed, so fallen it needed to be healed.

JoeT

 

[concretecamper]

I believe that Assumption of Mary is not R.C. dogma.

yes it is.

 

[prodromos]

"The flesh isn't what is fallen. It is the person that inherits original sign. Unless the mother is with original justice."

All creation was affected by the fall, flesh included.

 

[JoeT]

All creation was affected by the fall, flesh included.

If this were true then mankind could drive the bad genes out by genetic breeding - you know, like Hitler tried to do with his with his Übermensch. As I've said elsewhere, if God made us evil then the fault and guilt of our sinful ways is God's. Let me suggest another way which doesn't include Gnostic heresies.

“Justice is uprightness rectitude-of-will kept for its own sake.” [St. Anselm, On Truth, 12]. Continuing Anselm said, “Justice is not rightness of knowledge or rightness of action but is rightness of will.” [St. Anselm, On Truth, 12]. The will is contained in the intellect of man, thus ‘to will’ something is, by the definition, an act. As we are, Adam was free to act either in obedience or in disobedience. Prior to his original act of rebellion, Adam 'abides' in God. This abiding would have been more intense than abiding in Christ when partaking in the Eucharist. [Cf. John 6:57].

Adam's justice was part of his creation. Adam's graces were imparted in his creation and inexplicably joined the cardinal virtues having rights to honorable prudence, temperance, and fortitude in all moral acts. These gifts were inheritable to his progeny, had Adam not sinned we would have enjoyed the same honors given to Adam.

Because of the fist sin we bear both guilt and punishment as a people because of this original sin. We inherit the punishment and guilt in our birth being the progeny of Adam. Prior to his original to Adam’s rebellion, it could be said Adam 'abided' in God as we are invited to abide in Christ in the Eucharist after Baptism [Cf. John 6:57]. The punishment of original sin is not something put into us, or something that re-creates us into sin, rather it is the withdrawal of God's graces of original justice that once belonged to the patriarch of all men. Justice then was a grace we would have rightly inherited as his progeny had it not been Adam’s sin. Prior to the fall, Adam stood before God as a just man. The original man was created with a soul that was perfectly joined to the intellect and perfectly united with the will of God. The deprivation of justice finds its origin in Adam’s sin through his act of revolutionary disobedience; it is our heritage.

Without justification found in Baptism all acts, whether good or evil, are avaricious and thus not charitable as any good is done in expectation of gain. Hence, without Baptismal justification one cannot be saved. Justice then is a moral quality or habit, when perfected joins our will to an enlightened understanding to the will of God. When perfected we "walk with God".

So, we see that sin or evil is not in the flesh as we are creatures of God. Rather the guilt and punishment of the original sin of Adam is passed on to us not by something added to man but something man was deprived of, justice. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

In Baptism we are 'made right' with God, i.e. righteous through the efficacious grace. Man is 'reborn' into His Kingdom marked as belonging to Christ. Being made right with God a reborn man can, if he will, become justified to the will of God. Hence in Baptism we see the forgiveness of sins making us 'right' with God, beginning our life's journey of being 'justified'. Justification then is a state of being going from unjust prior to Baptism to a state of perfectly justified. We remain part of the corporate army of Satin until reborn in baptism into the Kingdom of where a semblance of justification is restored in the founts of the Church. In the Kingdom, we strive perfection "as also your heavenly Father is perfect" [Matthew 5:48].

Nor can justification be mere mental assent, you can't come to know what you don't love and the unrighteous do not love God. We perfect justification through charity and the love of God with the whole of the heart, soul and mind [Matthew 22:37].

JoeT

 

[prodromos]

If this were true then mankind could drive the bad genes out by genetic breeding - you know, like Hitler tried to do with his with his Übermensch.

That does not follow. You've made the false assumption that flesh is merely genetics which is not remotely true. All you do is setup a strawman to knock down.

As I've said elsewhere, if God made us evil then the fault and guilt of our sinful ways is God's.

Another man of straw. The fall did not make us evil and God most definitely did not make us evil. Nothing I've posted could be interpreted to suggest such a thing.

Let me suggest another way which doesn't include Gnostic heresies.

This is what all your responses boil down to, a logical fallacy. I'm done with responding to you.

 

[JoeT]

That does not follow. You've made the false assumption that flesh is merely genetics which is not remotely true. All you do is setup a strawman to knock down.

Did God make human flesh evil or not?

Another man of straw. The fall did not make us evil and God most definitely did not make us evil. Nothing I've posted could be interpreted to suggest such a thing.

Yes, something you wrote made me think that the contention is that God made us evil, needing to be healed. As I recall you said that Christ's human flesh needed to be healed.

This is what all your responses boil down to, a logical fallacy.

Not unless you believe the Doctor's of the Church and the Early Church Fathers writings are logical fallacy.

I'm done with responding to you.

I don't see how I made you respond to start with, but OK.

JoeT

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I believe that Assumption of Mary is not R.C. dogma.

It is my understanding that it is. In Lutheranism, it is considered "adiaphora".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<Snip>

The four Marian dogmas regarding Mary are the Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and Assumption, I’m not sure if they came in that order. Nevertheless, each of these doctrines ‘magnify’ the Lord who is the Second Person of the Trinity, wholly Divine, wholly human without mixing or confusion, in unity uniquely and inseparably joined.
<Snip>

As a Lutheran, I do agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary is to be honored. Historically and Biblically, Mary is indeed "Mother of God" or "Mother of our Lord"; our confessions uphold "her perpetual virginity"; the Assumption is considered Adiaphora; but we do not teach the immaculate conception. Luther did hold that Mary was sanctified by the annunciation, and bearing our perfect, sinless Lord that she was sinless from that point on (not doctrine or dogma either)

The Magnificat from Lutheran Service Book:

 

[JoeT]

As a Lutheran, I do agree that the Blessed Virgin Mary is to be honored.

What does being Lutheran have to do with the honor we show someone? Does that mean you don’t hold Mary as the spiritual mother of the Church? Honor is the reverence and respect of a recognized excellence given to God or creature. Honor is also shown to those who have a special relationship to those we honor. Just how do you honor Mary?

Historically and Biblically, Mary is indeed "Mother of God" or "Mother of our Lord"; our confessions uphold "her perpetual virginity";

Is this a begrudging acknowledgement, in that you must admit Mary as “Mother of God” because she is in the history books?

the Assumption is considered Adiaphora;

Cynicism? How do you get to choose what is true and not true?

but we do not teach the immaculate conception.

No surprise here. My contention however there is a necessity of salvation to accept the 4 Marian doctrines, including the immaculate conception. Conjecture a reason why the immaculate conception is not required for us?

Luther did hold that Mary was sanctified by the annunciation, and bearing our perfect, sinless Lord that she was sinless from that point on (not doctrine or dogma either)

The discussion isn’t Luther’s error rather the Necessity of 4 Marian doctrines for salvation held only by the Catholic Church.



JoeT

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What does being Lutheran have to do with the honor we show someone? Does that mean you don’t hold Mary as the spiritual mother of the Church? Honor is the reverence and respect of a recognized excellence given to God or creature. Honor is also shown to those who have a special relationship to those we honor. Just how do you honor Mary?



Is this a begrudging acknowledgement, in that you must admit Mary as “Mother of God” because she is in the history books?



Cynicism? How do you get to choose what is true and not true?



No surprise here. My contention however there is a necessity of salvation to accept the 4 Marian doctrines, including the immaculate conception. Conjecture a reason why the immaculate conception is not required for us?



The discussion isn’t Luther’s error rather the Necessity of 4 Marian doctrines for salvation held only by the Catholic Church.



JoeT

Since you feel it is important to shamelessly promote the Catholic position; I see no issue offering our position and the sound Biblical reasoning behind it.

Cynicism? Chose what is true or not? It seems to me that there have been a number of so called doctrines and dogmas that have been "chosen" by erring human popes that are not supported by Scripture, and that in some cases, the so called "tradition" came about centuries after the Apostles left this world.

What about the Catholics who died in the faith prior to these innovative new mandatory doctrines; are they all roasting in Hell eternally because of it??? Such would not be an unreasonable presumption considering that these "doctrines" are now required.

Manmade doctrines, while well intentioned, often become stumbling blocks to developing a proper relationship with the Trinity, and in some cases actually becomes idolatrous.

Mary is important, she is mentioned many times in God's Word, and she points us to Jesus Christ; but faith in Christ is the ultimate intent of the Scriptures. Remembering, venerating, and rejoicing in the saints must always remain but a tributary to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[JoeT]

Since you feel it is important to shamelessly promote the Catholic position; I see no issue offering our position and the sound Biblical reasoning behind it.

I don't see any shame in saying there is only one Church that holds to all 4 Marian doctrine. It is a matter of fact. Can you list any other faith paradigm that holds to the 4 Marian doctrines.

Cynicism? Chose what is true or not? It seems to me that there have been a number of so called doctrines and dogmas that have been "chosen" by erring human popes that are not supported by Scripture, and that in some cases, the so called "tradition" came about centuries after the Apostles left this world.

The question of cynicism was question put to you? Its my understanding adiaphora is a Greek word used to express cynicism, meaning something like, "it makes no difference if it does or doesn't".

That's funny you complain that 'truth' came centuries after the Apostles, didn't Luther come 15 centuries after the Apostles. Yet, his focus wasn't Christ but to bring down the Catholic Church.

Hence, the truth of the 4 Marian doctrines existed in the first century as it existed in the First Century when Scripture describes Mary as the Mother of God as proclaimed in Scripture; just as the doctrine of the Mary's perpetual virginity was first century truth when proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus, the truth of the immaculate conception existed in the 1st. century as Pope Pius IX in proclaimed in Inefabilis Deus know that truth is immutable as God is immutable and the truth of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God was present in the first century as proclaimed by Pope Pius XII. The date of the Church's proclamation only implies how slow some Catholics are at recognizing truth.

What about the Catholics who died in the faith prior to these innovative new mandatory doctrines;

There is nothing new, nothing innovative, all doctrine is a revelation of the Holy Spirit.

are they all roasting in Hell eternally because of it???

I suppose the Church could have, but never has proclaimed individuals will "roast in hell". Nevertheless, the Church does have the authority to bind and loose. [Matthew 18:18]

Such would not be an unreasonable presumption considering that these "doctrines" are now required.

Why?

If 'truth' were like an anvil anchored in the middle of a one-way narrow road the day it was built, does it not lie in the roadway there after? When navigating down this road do we ignor the anvil in our selection of speed and direction? Do we simply deny the anvil exists? The Marian doctrines is that anvil of truth identifying Christ. We do not love what we do not know, these four Marian doctrines magnify the Lord.

Manmade doctrines, while well intentioned, often become stumbling blocks to developing a proper relationship with the Trinity, and in some cases actually becomes idolatrous.

As I've said, these four Doctrines magnify the Lord, we come to know Him through Mary. Hence, person we know we can love, otherwise we have no trust in His humanity, Christ becomes a demigod, or an enigma, or a phony Rabbi, a mystic charlatan. All of these gods produce a weak faith.

Mary is important, she is mentioned many times in God's Word, and she points us to Jesus Christ;

You can have a shore bet on that.

but faith in Christ is the ultimate intent of the Scriptures. Remembering, venerating, and rejoicing in the saints must always remain but a tributary to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Not if he cannot be known, otherwise you have either a false faith or a very weak faith

JoeT

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't see any shame in saying there is only one Church that holds to all 4 Marian doctrine. It is a matter of fact. Can you list any other faith paradigm that holds to the 4 Marian doctrines.

The question of cynicism was question put to you? Its my understanding adiaphora is a Greek word used to express cynicism, meaning something like, "it makes no difference if it does or doesn't".

That's funny you complain that 'truth' came centuries after the Apostles, didn't Luther come 15 centuries after the Apostles. Yet, his focus wasn't Christ but to bring down the Catholic Church.

Hence, the truth of the 4 Marian doctrines existed in the first century as it existed in the First Century when Scripture describes Mary as the Mother of God as proclaimed in Scripture; just as the doctrine of the Mary's perpetual virginity was first century truth when proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus, the truth of the immaculate conception existed in the 1st. century as Pope Pius IX in proclaimed in Inefabilis Deus know that truth is immutable as God is immutable and the truth of the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God was present in the first century as proclaimed by Pope Pius XII. The date of the Church's proclamation only implies how slow some Catholics are at recognizing truth.

There is nothing new, nothing innovative, all doctrine is a revelation of the Holy Spirit.

I suppose the Church could have, but never has proclaimed individuals will "roast in hell". Nevertheless, the Church does have the authority to bind and loose. [Matthew 18:18]

Why?

If 'truth' were like an anvil anchored in the middle of a one-way narrow road the day it was built, does it not lie in the roadway there after? When navigating down this road do we ignor the anvil in our selection of speed and direction? Do we simply deny the anvil exists? The Marian doctrines is that anvil of truth identifying Christ. We do not love what we do not know, these four Marian doctrines magnify the Lord.

As I've said, these four Doctrines magnify the Lord, we come to know Him through Mary. Hence, person we know we can love, otherwise we have no trust in His humanity, Christ becomes a demigod, or an enigma, or a phony Rabbi, a mystic charlatan. All of these gods produce a weak faith.

You can have a shore bet on that.

Not if he cannot be known, otherwise you have either a false faith or a very weak faith

JoeT

When Church History is viewed with blinders on, the need for reformation and restoration that Luther began remains unfinished, and the need for reformation remains. Your citing of binding and loosing is evidence of such misapplication in that the authority given to the Church is to forgive the sins of those who repent and to retain the sins of those who do not, it does not confer inerrancy to frail, sinful humans.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Deleted.