There are a lot of Catholics on this list, and people who understand that Catholic way of thinking, so I'm sure they will step up and answer as well. I am also Catholic.
What do you mean by "believe in Mary"? Obviously Mary existed, I think all Christians acknowledge that. As Catholics, we hold her in a place of honor in the church, and celebrate that position as the mother of Christ. We do not put her above Jesus, we simply honor her for who she was -- a sort of reverence. We do not pray to Mary, we pray through Mary. Just as you would ask your mom to pray for you, we ask Mary to pray for us.
And yes, Catholics believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. The issue of transubstantiation was another of the big schisms between the Catholics and the Protestants.
How can you handle doctrinal differences? What are the differences exactly? We do not worship Mary, we worship God (and Jesus, as a part of the holy trinity). We do not worshop idols or statues, they are present only as remembrances. The cross can serve as an awesome reminder of the sacrifice of Christ and the humility that we feel without actually having to worship the cross itself. Whether or not you agree with the issue of the bread and wine, are we not both honoring the same event? We remember the same things that you mention in your post about the Last Supper.
While reverence for Mary within the Roman Catholic Church is a prominent feature, I understand that Catholics do not say that they worship Mary. I am, however, confused by how one can say that they do not worship Mary, but also refer to her as Co-Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix, essentially making her co-equal with Jesus, and therefore, God.
How does this get reconciled? Am I misunderstanding the terms?
You are misunderstanding the terms. Rather than try and put it in my own words, I'll link an article. However, if you google the terms there are many many explanations.
It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
The problem is that while this may be true on paper, I don't believe that Catholics actually get taught this. Some, like yourselves, may be better educated than most, but it seems like the average Catholic wouldn't understand this, if only because of the language difference from Latin to English (or Spanish). "Co" in English does mean "equal to" and people aren't going to naturally link it to the Latin root. So using the term in English at all is part of the source of the problem.
Even if what you say about Catholics is true, it isn't only true of Catholics. I never heard a non-heretical explanation of the Trinity growing up as an Evangelical. It was usually some Modalist metaphor or another. It wasn't until I started studying on my own, looking into Orthodoxy, and encountering the Church Fathers, that I found proper triadology.
Does this mean that no Evangelicals have learned correctly about the Trinity? No. If lack of learning among members is to be held against Catholics, it has to be held against all of us (Orthodox and Protestants included).
I am saying that the Orthodox regard the Dual Procession as a heresy. The Filioque is a double heresy, since it is an expression of heretical doctrine (dual procession), improperly added to a Creed that was closed in Ecumenical Council.
It isn't simply my opinion, and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I don't think anything has changed in Orthodox doctrine since St. Photios wrote "On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit." Or for that matter, since St. Basil the Great wrote "On the Holy Spirit."
Just as I thought. Well, you're not very likely to hear anything resembling "the Truth" in the protestant West then.
A better bet would probably be Catholicism, since the stance (ever since the Middle ages) is that both views are valid. Kinda like the electron: you can see it as a particle or as a wave (only not at the same time). I don't think that S:t Augustin necessarily contradicts S:t Basil, but do I feel uncomfortable with the way dual procession has often been explained. It depersonalises the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that S:t Augustin necessarily contradicts S:t Basil
That's correct, insofar as Augustine apparently didn't read St. Basil. From what research I've done, Augustine was very bad at Greek, and actually refused to learn it as a young man when he was in school. He was a Berber, and learned Latin at school, but resisted his teachers' attempts to teach him Greek. He tried to learn it later in life, but wasn't that into it. When he wrote De Trinitate, he thought he was just speculating on unsettled matters.
When the Latins later tried to enlist Augustine to support the filioque, the Orthodox rebuked them for sullying his name. They essentially said that Augustine erred out of ignorance, and not out of rebellion, and that no Father was always right about everything. The more recent Augustine-bashing that comes from Orthodox quarters is actually against Orthodox tradition. We regard Augustine as a saint. He had a couple wonky ideas, but he was doing a really tough job.
I have a REAL Orthodox icon-card from Greece of S:t Augustine, so I always get annoyed when I see things like "S:t Augustin" (in quotationmarks) on Orthodox sites/boards. Or when (while discussing the Fathers) he is the only one that doesn't get prefixed "S:t". I even once had a discussion with a very litterate Swedish convert to Orthodoxy who called into question the orthodoxy of S:t Ambrose! Well, you know, since some of the things he did not like about Augustine can be found as tendencies in Ambrose's writings and since Ambrose was Augustin's teacher, and since he didn't think that Augustin was anything but a western heretic, well...
Just keep a few copies of "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church," by Fr. Seraphim Rose, handy. Whenever you run into an Orthodox bashing St. Augustine, give them a copy.
And as gloomy as Augustine was about human nature, his writings have a wonderful humanity and dense of humor. You can't help but like the guy when you read his writings.
Also, St. Ambrose might not have been perfect, but he was pretty cool. I get the best communist quotes from him, among other things. Between him and St. John Chrysostom, we don't need Marx.
You know, I thought you were asking this in response to a different post. The other answer I gave you is fine, and is generating some interesting conversation. But, in the interest of clarifying what I mean with the post to which you were responding:
I wasn't even getting into the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. I meant that I heard explanations like "it's like water, ice, and steam," and other essentially modalist metaphors. It was never explained clearly that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally God, three persons in one essence, unconfused but indivisible. You know, those terms that all Christians should be able to agree on, regardless of their position on the procession of the Holy Spirit.
What do you think of the metaphor of three faces, each hewn into a side of a pyramid-shaped block of stone? I know it's not perfect, but would you find that modalist also?
There are a lot of Catholics on this list, and people who understand that Catholic way of thinking, so I'm sure they will step up and answer as well. I am also Catholic.
What do you mean by "believe in Mary"? Obviously Mary existed, I think all Christians acknowledge that. As Catholics, we hold her in a place of honor in the church, and celebrate that position as the mother of Christ. We do not put her above Jesus, we simply honor her for who she was -- a sort of reverence. We do not pray to Mary, we pray through Mary. Just as you would ask your mom to pray for you, we ask Mary to pray for us.
And yes, Catholics believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. The issue of transubstantiation was another of the big schisms between the Catholics and the Protestants.
How can you handle doctrinal differences? What are the differences exactly? We do not worship Mary, we worship God (and Jesus, as a part of the holy trinity). We do not worshop idols or statues, they are present only as remembrances. The cross can serve as an awesome reminder of the sacrifice of Christ and the humility that we feel without actually having to worship the cross itself. Whether or not you agree with the issue of the bread and wine, are we not both honoring the same event? We remember the same things that you mention in your post about the Last Supper.
Reply
How does this get reconciled? Am I misunderstanding the terms?
Reply
Here is the article (or compilation, really):
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html
Here is the most relevant text:
It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Does this mean that no Evangelicals have learned correctly about the Trinity? No. If lack of learning among members is to be held against Catholics, it has to be held against all of us (Orthodox and Protestants included).
Reply
Reply
It isn't simply my opinion, and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I don't think anything has changed in Orthodox doctrine since St. Photios wrote "On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit." Or for that matter, since St. Basil the Great wrote "On the Holy Spirit."
Reply
A better bet would probably be Catholicism, since the stance (ever since the Middle ages) is that both views are valid. Kinda like the electron: you can see it as a particle or as a wave (only not at the same time). I don't think that S:t Augustin necessarily contradicts S:t Basil, but do I feel uncomfortable with the way dual procession has often been explained. It depersonalises the Holy Spirit.
Reply
That's correct, insofar as Augustine apparently didn't read St. Basil. From what research I've done, Augustine was very bad at Greek, and actually refused to learn it as a young man when he was in school. He was a Berber, and learned Latin at school, but resisted his teachers' attempts to teach him Greek. He tried to learn it later in life, but wasn't that into it. When he wrote De Trinitate, he thought he was just speculating on unsettled matters.
When the Latins later tried to enlist Augustine to support the filioque, the Orthodox rebuked them for sullying his name. They essentially said that Augustine erred out of ignorance, and not out of rebellion, and that no Father was always right about everything. The more recent Augustine-bashing that comes from Orthodox quarters is actually against Orthodox tradition. We regard Augustine as a saint. He had a couple wonky ideas, but he was doing a really tough job.
Reply
Reply
And as gloomy as Augustine was about human nature, his writings have a wonderful humanity and dense of humor. You can't help but like the guy when you read his writings.
Also, St. Ambrose might not have been perfect, but he was pretty cool. I get the best communist quotes from him, among other things. Between him and St. John Chrysostom, we don't need Marx.
Reply
Now, I'm no socialist, but when Christian socialists are referring to Ambrose and Chrysostom, I'm prepared to listen :-)
Reply
I wasn't even getting into the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. I meant that I heard explanations like "it's like water, ice, and steam," and other essentially modalist metaphors. It was never explained clearly that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all equally God, three persons in one essence, unconfused but indivisible. You know, those terms that all Christians should be able to agree on, regardless of their position on the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Reply
Yuk - anathema!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment