Author Topic: Is it true that El Francis... (Read 2021 times)

Lighthouse · « **on:** October 12, 2013, 04:09:34 PM »

referred to our Blessed Mother as "the mother of Jesus" recently?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2013, 04:14:07 PM »

Is that a particularly objectionable title?

Lighthouse · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2013, 05:55:50 PM »

It is the frequent appellation used by liberal Protestants and atheists to detract from the Catholic designation as Mother of God, a thought they cannot abide.

I'm sure some do it out of ignorance.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2013, 05:59:26 PM »

Normally, I wouldn't "see" the issue, but I get what you're driving at.

Remember that in his "no Catholic God" comments he also seemed to distinguish Jesus as someone different than God.

It's amazing how you see things differently as the scales drop from your eyes.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2013, 06:29:46 PM »

Mater Christi, ora pro nobis.
Mater divinae gratiae, ora pro nobis.
Mater purissima, ora pro nobis.
Mater castissima, ora pro nobis.
Mater inviolata, ora pro nobis.
Mater intemerata, ora pro nobis.
Mater amabilis, ora pro nobis.
Mater admirabilis, ora pro nobis.
Mater boni consilii, ora pro nobis.
Mater Creatoris, ora pro nobis.
Mater Salvatoris, ora pro nobis.

Did I miss the verse proclaiming the Mother of Jesus?

compline · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2013, 08:19:50 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

Did I miss the verse proclaiming the Mother of Jesus?

Yes, it's John 2:1.
And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.

Sigismund · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:01:44 PM »

There is nothing wrong with saying that the Theotokos was the mother of Jesus. She certainly was. What is at issue here is if this phrase is meant in some way to deny that she is the mother of God.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:24:04 PM »

Quote

There is nothing wrong with saying that the Theotokos was the mother of Jesus. She certainly was. What is at issue here is if this phrase is meant in some way to deny that she is the mother of God.

Yes, exactly. Compline's passage from St. John was a simple description for a narrative he was writing. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that Arianism and Nestorius started trying to distort the concept. It did become a challenge to the divinty of Christ at that point, and the Church found it necessary to deal with it explicitly. No one has a problem with the Japanese, and we would all like to spend some time in Hawaii, but it's only when both concepts are tied together that some hackles become raised and more subtlety is required.

It is hard to believe that Francis is unaware of this, or is not doing it as a specific rallying cry for modernism.

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:34:06 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

referred to our Blessed Mother as "the mother of Jesus" recently?

That should not be an issue unless he were to specifically deny that she was the Mother of God.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:39:45 PM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: Lighthouse
referred to our Blessed Mother as "the mother of Jesus" recently?

That should not be an issue unless he were to specifically deny that she was the Mother of God.

Since he is on record as saying "...there is no Catholic god..." In a newspaper interview and in another interview he gave an implicit impression of denying the Trinity, well, I guess we are to surmise on our own what his actual interpretation one of Our Lady's many titles actually is.

This is how modernists work. They seem to be on but are somewhat off but usually not off enough to be obvious to a majority. However, most people see that something is very "off" with Pope Francis.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:53:06 PM »

from the writings of St. John of Cassian against Nestorius written at the behest of Pope St. Leo (I) the Great:

For if the will of God alone, and His command sufficed to fashion the heavens, form the earth, create the sea, thrones, and seats, and angels, and archangels, and principalities, and powers, and in a word to create all the armies of heaven, and those countless thousands of thousands of the Divine hosts ("For He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created" ), why was it that that was insufficient for the creation of (according to you) a single man, which was sufficient for the production of all things divine, and that the power and majesty of God did not entrust that with the birth of a single infant, which had availed to fashion all things earthly and heavenly? But certainly the reason why all those works were performed by the command of God, but the nativity was only accomplished by His coming was because God could not be conceived by man unless He allowed it, nor be born unless He Himself entered in; and therefore the archangel pointed out that the sacred majesty would come upon the Virgin, I mean that as so great an event could not be brought about by human appointment, he announced that there would be present at the conception the glory of Him who was to be born. And so the Word, the Son, descended: the majesty of the Holy Ghost was present: the power of the Father was overshadowing; that in the mystery of the holy conception the whole Trinity might cooperate. "Therefore," he says, "also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God." Admirably does he add "Therefore," in order to show that this would therefore follow because that had gone before; and that because God had come upon her at the conception therefore God would be present at the birth. And when the maiden understood not, he gave a reason for this great thing, saying: "Because the Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and because the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God;" that is to say: That you may not be ignorant of the provision for so great a work, and the mystery of this great secret, the majesty of God shall therefore come upon you completely; because the Son of God shall be born of you. What further doubt can there be about this? Or what is there further to be said? He said that God would come upon her; that the Son of God would be born. Ask now, if you like, how the Son of God can help being God, or how she who brought forth God can fail to be Theotocos, i.e., the Mother of God? This alone ought to be enough for you; aye this ought to be amply sufficient for you.

poche · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:54:42 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: poche
Quote from: Lighthouse
referred to our Blessed Mother as "the mother of Jesus" recently?

That should not be an issue unless he were to specifically deny that she was the Mother of God.

Since he is on record as saying "...there is no Catholic god..." In a newspaper interview and in another interview he gave an implicit impression of denying the Trinity, well, I guess we are to surmise on our own what his actual interpretation one of Our Lady's many titles actually is.

This is how modernists work. They seem to be on but are somewhat off but usually not off enough to be obvious to a majority. However, most people see that something is very "off" with Pope Francis.

I suspect he is being quoted out of context there.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2013, 11:55:02 PM »

You cannot say: Christ was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle declares that God was. You cannot say that Jesus was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle testifies that God was. You cannot say: the Saviour was born, but God was not; for an Apostle supports the fact that God was. There is no way of escape for you. Whichever of the titles of the Lord you may take, He is God, of whom you speak. You have nothing to say: nothing to assert: nothing to invent in your wicked falsehood. You can in impious unbelief refuse to believe: you have nothing to deny in the matter of your blasphemy.

ibid

Lighthouse · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2013, 12:01:32 AM »

And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God. ibid.

The distinction has a long history with the Church always on the side of Mary being described as the Mother of God.

Likewise the use of the other name has been used for a long time to be the intro to an appeal to Jesus Christ's humanity without need of Godhood.

Holy Mary, MOTHER OF GOD...

poche · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2013, 12:25:58 AM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

You cannot say: Christ was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle declares that God was. You cannot say that Jesus was born of Mary, but God was not; for an Apostle testifies that God was. You cannot say: the Saviour was born, but God was not; for an Apostle supports the fact that God was. There is no way of escape for you. Whichever of the titles of the Lord you may take, He is God, of whom you speak. You have nothing to say: nothing to assert: nothing to invent in your wicked falsehood. You can in impious unbelief refuse to believe: you have nothing to deny in the matter of your blasphemy.

ibid

When he sad that Christ was born of Mary he was not saying that Mary is not the Mother of God.