Addressing more objections to "mother of God"

The two most common huddles in my experience to people rejecting the Marian title "mother of God" is 1) poor education in logic, 2) poor education on Christology. The first is a fault of secular education, logic/philosophy is not generally taught in American education until college/university. The second is a general fault of Christian education, though Catholicism has a poorly educated laity, Protestant laity, with few exceptions like Lutheranism, have no real means of synthesizing doctrine. Consequently, Protestants will sometimes call Christ by terms high church Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox would generally object, but not necessarily out of heresy, but out of ignorance. For instance, I heard a radio Protestant preacher refer to Christ as a "human being," certainly he confessed Christ as fully God and fully man, but he likely lacked education behind the meaning of the term person. From experience, a more common issue is, many Protestants do not understand that Christ having two natures makes him both created and uncreated. As a man, Christ is a creature that was conceived of in time in the Virgin Mary. His flesh had a beginning in time and space. Colossians 1:15 recognizes Christ is a creature, the chapter also recognizes him as the Creator who always existed. Though, having a beginning, the created Flesh of Christ was divine itself by the Incarnation, John 1:14 says, "the Word became flesh." For this reason we can say "God died" since God experienced death in the person of the Son in His human nature. Luke 1:35 describes Mary not simply giving birth to the Messiah, but to the "son of God," which is a divine titles meaning He is born of God Himself (as God the Son, Christ is eternally born of the Father, hence the two births of Christ: temporal and eternal)

To deny the Virgin Mary as the mother of God, is to potentially imply a few things:

a) Christ is two persons, the Virgin birth the human one only, which was lately shared/replaced by the Divine person.

b) or that Christ sort of possesses a body in the sense a demon possess a body. Yet the Scriptures states, "the Word became Flesh." 

c) Christ is only "partly God" that is He is only the Son of God, but not God Himself, or that the three persons only collectively can be called "God"

Objection: Mary cannot be mother of God, since Christ is only one person of the Trinity, to be mother of God should have to birth the whole trinity, at most you can call her "mother of God the Son"

Reply: By this reasoning Jesus cannot be ever spoken of as "God" but only "God the Son" yet scripture at times simply calls him "God" as in John 1:1 and John 20:28. Likewise, this reasoning means the Father cannot be called God being only 1 of the 3 persons, same with the Spirit. Few Protestants will deny Christ is God, but they will redefine their terms for the sake of denying the term "mother of God."

To say Christ is only part of God or 1/3rd of God is partialism, which itself can be potentially tritheism.

Objection: God is eternal, Mary is not. She cannot give birth to an eternal being.

Reply: We recognize Mary is created and God is uncreated. We also recognize the Son to be eternally begotten of His Father, that is from before time began and without end into the future. In his humanity he made a birth in time of the Virgin. But since that flesh was the Word also according to John 1:14, and the flesh was brought forth from Mary, it can be said she bore God in a temporal manner, since in entering His creation the Divine joined himself to the created, he was born, suffered and died. 

By the same reasoning as the objection, Muslims say "God cannot die" "God cannot suffer" "God cannot poop" etc and conclude Jesus cannot be God. Yet in the incarnation the Word who is God became flesh, God experienced all these things including having a human mother.

Objection: Only "mother of Lord is biblical" since Luke 1:43 says "mother of my Lord." Again, a created being cannot birth the uncreated God!

Reply: Is the Lord uncreated? Why is it acceptable to say a created human woman is the mother of the uncreated Lord, but once you change the word Lord to God, it becomes objectionable? Lord and God are referring to the same thing, Deity. The terms are interchangeable in the Bible. Did the Spirit inspire Elizabeth to call Christ merely a human lord? The instances of Lord in Luke 1 are to the Lord God.

Objection: You built this doctrine around one single verse, Luke 1:43. Any doctrine should be established by more than one verse!

Reply: Read what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary:

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God"--Luke 1:35

The title "Son of God" when used in the New Testament for Christ is a term for his Deity, a son has the same nature as his father, likewise the Son of God shares the nature of the Father. 

The Angel said she will give birth to the Son of God, she is, therefore, "mother of the Son of God." Yet Mary is created and the Son of God is without beginning. The scripture did not object to terms like "mother of my Lord" yet those who object to "mother of God" pick at it accuse it of being imprecise, yet the Scriptures do not see the need to limit their words as some do. The scriptures could have said, "the flesh born to you will be called the son of man" which would be consistent with reasoning of some Baptists. 

Objection: The term mother of God is pagan.

Reply: This doesn't stop you from using pagan titles and terms for YHVH and Christ in the Bible. The Pagans also had people that were "sons of God." The pagans also has a god named "El." They also had a god they called "he who rides the clouds." The pagans also had people that were "the image of a god." There are many more examples. Pagan also had gods that could die, gods that were born of virgins, men that were divine,. This object is absurd and conveniently ignores the issue for titles found in the Bible.

Suggestionem anafora in Councils

An anonymous Orthodox apologist stated that the use of the word suggestionem in conciliar documents precludes any sense of a dogmatic statement. Suggestion in the councils are proposals. The Papal suggestions are forceful--the pope does give options. One is to obey the Pope's decision and the other is to be a heretic.

Constantinople II:

The "suggestion" of Pope Agatho at Constantinople III:

Moreover, most pious and God-instructed sons and lords, if the Archbishop of the Church of Constantinople shall choose to hold and to preach with us this most unblameable rule of Apostolic doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, of the venerable synods, of the spiritual Fathers, according to their evangelical understanding, through which the form of the truth has been set forth by us through the assistance of the Spirit, there will ensue great peace to them that love the name of God, and there will remain no scandal of dissension, and that will come to pass which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, when through the grace of the Holy Spirit the people had come to the acknowledging of Christianity, all of us will be of one heart and of one mind. But if (which God forbid!) he shall prefer to embrace the novelty but lately introduced by others; and shall ensnare himself with doctrines which are alien to the rule of orthodox truth and of our Apostolic faith, to decline which as injurious to souls' these have put off, despite the exhortation and admonitions of our predecessors in the Apostolic See, down to this day, he himself should know what kind of an answer he will have to give for such contempt in the divine examination of Christ before the judge of all, who is in heaven, to whom when he cometh to judgment also we ourselves are about to give an account of the ministry of preaching the truth which has been committed to us, or for the toleration of things contrary to the Christian religion: and may we (as I humbly pray) preserve unconfusedly and freely, with simplicity and purity, whole and undefiled, the Apostolic and Evangelical rule of the right faith as we have received it from the beginning. And may your most august serenity, for the affection and reverence which you bear to the Catholic and Apostolic right faith, receive the perfect reward of your pious labours from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the ruler with you of your Christian empire, whose true confession you desire to preserve undefiled, because nothing in any respect has been neglected or omitted by your God-crowned clemency, which could minister to the peace of the churches, provided always that the integrity of the true faith was maintained: since God, the Judge of all, who disposes the ending of all matters as he deems most expedient, seeks out the intent of the heart, and will accept a zeal for piety. Therefore I exhort you, O most pious and clement Emperor, and together with my littleness every Christian man exhorts you on bended knee with all humility, that to all the God-pleasing goodnesses and admirable imperial benefits which the heavenly condescension has vouchsafed to grant to the human race through your God-accepted care, this also you would order, for the redintegration of perfect piety, to offer an acceptable sacrifice to Christ the Lord your fellow-ruler, granting entire impunity, and free faculty of speech to each one wishing to speak, and to urge a word in defence of the faith which he believes and holds, so that it may most manifestly be recognized by all that by no terror, by no force, by no threat or aversion any one wishing to speak for the truth of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, has been prohibited or repulsed, and that all unanimously may glorify your imperial (divinam) majesty, throughout the whole since of their lives for so great and so inestimable a good, and may pour forth unceasing prayers to Christ the Lord that your most strong empire may be preserved untouched and exalted. The Subscription. May the grace from above keep your empire, most pious lords, and place beneath its feet the neck of all the nations. --Pope Agatho Letter to Emperor Constantine IV on the Third Council of Constantinople

Notice the Pope formed his own dogmatic letter, then there was a separate letter, less forceful done by the synod with the Pope. So certainly the Pope's letter was not that of the synod! The text is very forceful, it appears to give the Greeks an option, either obey or disobey and be out of the Church.

The definition of suggestio:

suggestĭo(subg- ), ōnis, f. suggero. * 

I. Lit., an adding to, addition: “potus suggestione auctus,” Cael. Aur. Tard. 2, 13, 182.— 

II. Trop. * A. A rhet. fig., where the orator puts a question and answers it himself, a suggestion: “quod schema quidam per suggestionem vocant, i. e. per subjectionem,” Quint. 9, 2, 15.—B. A hint, intimation, suggestion (late Lat.), Vop. Aur. 14; 19; Symm. Ep. 9, 20; Inscr. Orell. 2. 

A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879

What does anafora ἀναφορά mean?

The following is taken from Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

άναφορ-ά , ἡ, (ἀναφέρομαι)

A.coming up, rising, “ἀ. ποιεῖσθαι” rise, Arist.HA622b7; of vapours or exhalations, Placit.3.7.4, Theol.Ar. 31, cf. Orib.9.16.3, etc.

2. Astron., ascent of a sign measured in degrees of the equator, Ptol.Tetr.134.

b. Astrol., = ἐπαναφορά, τόπος next to a κέντρον, Vett.Val.19.18.

c. ascendant, Cat.Cod.Astr.8(3).100; opp. ἀπόκλιμα, Serapion in Cat.Cod.Astr. 1.99, S.E.M.5.20, etc.

d. rising of a sign, Ach.Tat.Intr.Arat. 39.

II. (ἀναφέρω) carrying back, reference of a thing to a standard, “διὰ τὸ γίνεσθαι ἐπαίνους δι᾽ ἀναφορᾶς” Arist.EN1101b20; in Law, recourse, “ἐκείνοις εἶναι εἰς τοὺς ἔχοντας ἀναφοράν” D.24.13: abs., Thphr. Char.8.5 (pl.), IG5(1).1390.111 (Andania, i B.C.); “ἡ ἀ. ἐστι πρός τι” Arist.Cat.5b20, al.; ἀ. ἔχειν πρός or ἐπί τι to be referable to . ., Epicur. Fr.409, Plb.4.28.3, Plu.2.290e, al.; ἀ. τινος γίγνεται πρός or ἐπί τι, Plb.1.3.4, Plu.2.1071a; “ἐπ᾽ ἀναφορᾷ τῇ πρὸς τὸν δῆμον” BCH46.312 (Teos); ἀ. ἔχειν ἐπί τι, of writings, refer to, Alex.Aphr.in Mete.4.1; τούτων εἰς Κυναίγειρον ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀναφοράν assign to, give credit for . ., Polem.Call.23.

2. way of retreat, “ὑπέλιπε ἑαυτῷ ἀναφοράν” D.18.219; “νῦν δὲ αὑτοῖς μὲν κατέλιπον τὴν εἰς τὸ ἀφανὲς ἀναφοράν” Aeschin. 2.104, cf. Plb.15.8.13, etc.

3. means of repairing a fault, defeat, etc., “ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἀ. τῆς ξυμφορᾶς” E.Or.414; “ἀ. ἁμαρτήματος ἔχειν” way to atone for . ., Plu.Phoc.2; “ἀ. ἔχειν” means of recovery, Id.Fab. 14.

4. offering, LXX Ps.50(51).21; “ἡ ἀ. τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ λεκτικοῦ” PMag.Par.2.281.

5. report, PLond.1.17.34 (ii B.C.), etc.

6. petition, PRyl.119.28(i A.D.).

7. payment on account, instalment, OGI225 (Milet.), PEleph.14.26 (iii B.C.), PRev.Laws16.10 (iii B.C.), etc.

8. Rhet., repetition of a word, Longin.20.1, Demetr.Eloc, 141.

9. office of ἀναφορεύς, LXX Nu.4.6,10.

10. Medic., = ἀνάδοσις, opp. πέψις, Aret.SD2.7.

III. ceiling of a wine-press, Gp.6.1.3.

For better context, this dissertation explains the terms: 

"The term ἀναφορά is often a translation for suggestio, or relatio  an official report or petition to the imperial chancery.  Its use in these canons is somewhat looser." --The Nature of Law and Legality in the Byzantine Canonical Collections 381-883

Also, 

The Byzantine usage builds on this classical and Hellenistic terminology: by the late antique period, επιστολη is firmly established as generic name, while γραμματα continues to be used as a synonym, although it had a broader semantic field and its meaning could therefore be ambivalent. (The plural does not help either: the modern reader in particular, lacking context, often has to guess whether a writer refers to one or several pieces of correspondence.) With the exception of the vernacular χαρτι(ν) or χαρτιτσι (from χαρτηψ: "piece of papyrus", see above, or later "paper", hence "document"), ancient terms derived from the writing support were gradually abandoned, while new names emerged either as synonyms for επιστολη/  γραμματα or to designate specific epistolary types or subgenres. For example, συλλαβη / συλλαβι (literally "syllable(s)") and πιτταχι(ον) fall into the first category. The latter originally designated a writing tablet and in the middle Byzantine period especially imperial and patriarchal documents, and would become a standard term for letter in vernacular Greek. In the second category of terms signifying particular epistolary types belong, for instance, αντιγραμμα or αντιγραφον for a letter-response; ἀναφορά ("report") for a petition to an emperor; and σάχρα--derived from Latin sacra -- for an official letter issued by the emperor or an ecclesiaσtical authority, which from the Greek found its way also into Syria, as did τομοσ(originally "papyrus roll", "book") for a synodical letter and εγχυχλιοσfor an encyclical.--A Companion to Byzantine Epistolography, Introduction, p. 7

This fits the definition of anafora/ἀναφορά, since Pope Agatho's letter was addressed to the Emperor, not the council directly:

Agatho a bishop and servant of the servants of God to the most devout and serene victors and conquerors, our most beloved sons and lovers of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Emperor Constantine the Great, and to Heraclius and Tiberius, Augustuses.--Pope Agatho's letter to the Emperor concerning Constantinople III.

This is more useful than the dictionary definitions of the term. though ἀναφορά does have petition as one of its wide range of meanings.  

The suggestion of the synod of Rome presented the faith as presented by Pope Martin and his council stating this is the Faith and those who reject it error.

 [ The Emperor said] 

Let George, the most holy archbishop of this our God-preserved city, and let Macarius, the venerable archbishop of Antioch, and let the synod subject to them [i.e., their suffragans] say, if they submit to the force ( ei stoikousi dunamei ) of the suggestions sent by the most holy Agatho Pope of Old (1) Rome and by his Synod.

[The answer of George, with which all his bishops, many of them, speaking one by one, agreed except Theodore of Metilene (who handed in his assent at the end of the Tenth Session).] 

I have diligently examined the whole force of the suggestions sent to your most pious Fortitude, as well by Agatho, the most holy Pope of Old(1) Rome, as by his synod, and I have scrutinized the works of the holy and approved Fathers, which are laid up in my venerable patriarchate, and I have found that all the testimonies of the holy and accepted Fathers, which are contained in those suggestions agree with, and in no particular differ from, the holy and accepted Fathers. Therefore I give my submission to them and thus I profess and believe. 

[The answer of all the rest of the Bishops subject to the See of Constantinople. (Col. 735.)]

And we, most pious Lord, accepting the teaching of the suggestion sent to your most gentle Fortitude by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, and of that other suggestion which was adopted by the council subject to him, and following the sense therein contained, so we are minded, so we profess, and so we believe that in our one Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, there are two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, undividedly, and two natural wills and two natural operations; and all who have taught, and who now say, that there is but one will and one operation in the two natures of our one Lord Jesus Christ our true God, we anathematize. 

Notice the suggestions are spoken of as having to be "submitted to" and as having "force" or "power"

Nicea II:

We see the mention of suggestion/anafora again at the 7th ecumenical council of Nicea II:

And when the most blessed Pope heard it, he said: Since this has come to pass in the days of their reign, God has magnified their pious rule above all former reigns. And this suggestion ( anaforan ) which has been read he sent to our most pious kings together with a letter to your holiness and with his vicars who are here present and presiding. --Nicea II, Session II 

The suggestionem to the Emperor was, in part, the following:

 If the ancient orthodoxy be perfected and restored by your means in those regions, and the venerable icons be placed in their original state, you will be partakers with the Lord Constantine, Emperor of old, now in the Divine keeping, and the Empress Helena, who made conspicuous and confirmed the orthodox Faith, and exalted still more your holy mother, the Catholic and Roman and spiritual Church, and with the orthodox Emperors who ruled after them, and so your most pious and heaven-protected name likewise will be set forth as that of another Constantine and another Helena, being renowned and praised through the whole world, by whom the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is restored. And especially if you follow the tradition of the orthodox Faith of the Church of the holy Peter and Paul, the chief Apostles, and embrace their Vicar, as the Emperors who reigned before you of old both honoured their Vicar, and loved him with all their heart: and if your sacred majesty honour the most holy Roman Church of the chief Apostles, to whom was given power by God the Word himself to loose and to bind sins in heaven and earth. For they will extend their shield over your power, and all barbarous nations shall be put under your feet: and wherever you go they will make you conquerors. For the holy and chief Apostles themselves, who set up the Catholic and orthodox Faith, have laid it down as a written law that all who after them are to be successors of their seats, should hold their Faith and remain in it to the end of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all...--Pope Hadrian's Letter to the Emperor at the Second Council of Nicea (Greek reading of the text)

We see that anafora/suggsetionem is both forceful and a choice. If the Emperor follows through with restoring orthodoxy in his realm God will bless him.

As a side note, according to the Vita of Pope Zachary, after his election he sent a letter to Constantinople and sent a suggestionem to the emperor of his time requesting he cease iconoclasm.

"simulque et aliam suggestionem dirigens serenissimo Constantino principi."--Vita Zacharias 901

In Pope Hadrian's anafora to the Emperor at Nicea II, some have suggested alludes to Zachary's anafora as a plea from the Pope Zachary to the Emperor's ancestor to restore iconography. 

"After this Gregory and Gregory, most blessed Pontiffs of our Apostolic Throne, were greatly grieved, and did oftentimes most earnestly beseech this ancestor of your religious Serenity that venerable images might be restored to their wonted station; but never would be any ear to their salutary request. And after this, Zachary, Stephen, Paul, and another Stephen, our predecessors in the Pontifical Chair, did no less earnestly beseech the Grandfather and Father of your pious Royalty on the same subject of this restoration of holy images...."--Pope Adrian to the Emperor as read at Nicea II, Mansi Concilia 12:1061 as translated here 

Council of Carthage AD 419 

In the council of Carthage AD 419 we see suggestionem used in a different sense, not referring necessarily to Imperial letters, its translated as "edict," "story" and "suggestion":

Aurelius, the bishop, said: The cupidity of avarice (which, let no one doubt, is the mother of all evil things), is to be henceforth prohibited, lest anyone should usurp another's limits, or for gain should pass beyond the limits fixed by the fathers, nor shall it be at all lawful for any of the clergy to receive usury of any kind. And those new edicts (suggestiones) which are obscure and generally ambiguous, after they have been examined by us, will have their value fixed (formam accipiunt); but with regard to those upon which the Divine Scripture has already most plainly given judgment, it is unnecessary that further sentence should be pronounced, but what is already laid down is to be carried out. And what is reprehensible in laymen is worthy of still more severe censure in the clergy. The whole synod said: No one has gone contrary to what is said in the Prophets and in the Gospels with impunity.--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 5 Latin

Aurelius the bishop said: Your worthiness has heard the suggestion (suggestionem) of our brother and fellow bishop Fortunatus; What answer will you give?--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 6 Latin

and therefore, brethren, receive our story with alacrity of mind (atque, ideo, frates, suggestionem nostram libenter admitteite)--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 47. (Greek li.)  Latin text

 All which things, if they please your sanctity, pray set forth, that I may be assured that my suggestion (suggestionem) has been ratified by you and that their sincerity may freely accept our unanimous action.--Council of Carthage AD 419, Canon 64. (Greek lxvii.)

Concerning the word anaphora's usage in ecclesiastical documents there is the Ἀναφορὰ πρὸς Ἰωάννην πατριάρχην , which in 518 was signed.

Conclusion: 

The ἀναφορά of the Pope and the synod under him were petitionary letters or reports to the emperor, instructing him what the orthodox position is on the matter, and any deviation is to fall outside the Church. Had the letter's doctrinal statements been rejected, Constantinople III would have been a failed ecumenical council or a robber council that taught heresy.

Original guilt

 This is an incomplete article with citations for references to the "guilt of original sin"

Orthodox claim the Catholic Church abandoned the doctrine of original guilt.

"Guilt of original sin" is mentioned a few times. either as "reatum originalis peccati" or "originalis culpae"

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 268. Was any one ever preserved from original sin? 

A. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through the merits of her Divine Son, was preserved free from the guilt of original sin, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.

 30 day catechism:

7. Has all of mankind contracted the guilt and stain of original sin?
All except the Blessed Virgin who was conceived without the least guilt or stain of original sin (the Immaculate Conception). 

Day 9:

5. What is original sin?  The guilt and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, the origin of all mankind. 

7. Has all of mankind contracted the guilt and stain of original sin?
All except the Blessed Virgin who was conceived without the least guilt or stain of original sin (the Immaculate Conception). 

The Catechism of Trent (Roman Catechism), on Article II, uses another phrase:

When Adam had departed from the obedience due to God and had violated the prohibition, of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death, he fell into the extreme misery of losing the sanctity and righteousness in which he had been placed, and of becoming subject to all those other evils which have been explained more fully by the holy Council of Trent.

Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin (peccatum et peccati poenam) were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all posterity. The human race, having fallen from its elevated dignity, no power of men or Angels could raise it from its fallen condition and replace it in its primitive state. To remedy the evil and repair the loss it became necessary that the Son of God, whose power is infinite, clothed in the weakness of our flesh, should remove the infinite weight of sin and reconcile us to God in His blood.

The Council of Trent itself states:

5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin (reatum originalis peccati) is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. 

 The council of Trent is most authoritative document using the phrase here translated "guilt of original sin"--"reatum originalis peccati". Another translation says, "liability of original sin." This is a response to Luther's total depravity claim that even after regeneration a person cannot perform any good works before God because of the taint of original sin. 

The language is used by St Thomas Aquinas:

Reply to Objection 1. The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that approach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt of original sin (saltem propter reatum originalis peccati).--Summa Theologiae, part 3, section 71, Article 2

Elsewhere,

Reply to Objection 2. The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the penalty of actual sins [reatu poenae actualium peccatorum], but not from the penalty of original sin [reatu poenae originalis peccati], whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of original sin [reatu originalis] as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by the penalty of original sin [reatu originalis peccati] as to the necessity of dying in the body because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh, according to Romans 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification." --Summa Theologiae, Part 3, Question 52,  Article 5

 Again, St Thomas:

On the contrary, Augustine says (Retract. i, 15): "Concupiscence is the guilt of original sin." (concupiscentia est reatus originalis peccati)--Summa Theologiae, First part of the second part, Question 82, Article III

St Augustine uses "originalis peccati reatum"

"The grace of Christ takes away the guilt of original sin [Tollit gratia Christi originalis peccati reatum], but it takes away something invisible in an invisible way. It also forgives all sins which human beings have added on to it by living bad lives. Judgement, of course, comes after the one sin and leads to condemnation because that one in which is contracted by those who are born draws them to eternal condemnation if it is not forgiven."--St Augustine, Second Book again Julian, 97

Catechism of Pope Pius IX lacks the language of guilt:

41 Q. Is this sin proper to Adam alone?
A. This sin is not Adam's sin alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam's sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin.

42 Q. How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men?
A. Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts.

43 Q. Do all men contract original sin?

A. Yes, all men contract original sin, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, who was preserved from it by a singular privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour. 

2 Q. What is original sin?
A. Original sin is the sin in which we are all born, and which we contracted by the disobedience of our first parent, Adam.

3 Q. What evil effects has the sin of Adam brought upon us?
A. The evil effects of the sin of Adam are: The privation of grace, the loss of Paradise, together with ignorance, inclination to evil, death, and all our other miseries.

4 Q. How is original sin cancelled?

A. Original sin is cancelled by holy Baptism. 

"originalis culpae" is used in Vatican II:

But since it has pleased God not to manifest solemnly the mystery cf the salvation of the human race before He would pour forth the Spirit promised by Christ, we see the apostles before the day of Pentecost “persevering with one mind in prayer with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren”,(Act 1,14), and Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation. Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin [ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservata immunis],^(12*) on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory--Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 59

Which is referring to the ex-cathedra defining the immaculate conception:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin [originalis culpae labe], is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." --Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus

In my opinion, concerning the church teaching on original sin alone being sufficient for damnation shows that it separates us from God, but the church likewise teaches us the punishment in Hell in not equal to those who deliberately sinned. In fact, the theologians generally taught that the punishment is Hell is nothing other than being in Hell, St Thomas said the souls in limbo in Hell are actually experiencing natural happiness, this was taught also by Dante too.  

Muslim objections to the Gospels, Who are their fathers?

Modern Islamic apologetics requires Muslims to profess what presently constitutes the gospel accounts as being fraudulent, this of course being a necessity since the doctrines within them plainly contradict Islam (eg they teach Christ actually died, Christ calls God His Father, they call Christ God). 

A recreation of a Muslim polemicist is reproduced below:

Muslim: Who wrote the Gospels? We don't even know the names of their fathers!

Response: We know the names of the fathers of two of the 4 gospels.

The Gospel according to John was written by the Apostle John. 

The Apostle John was the son of Zebedee, and his brother was James: 

And James and John the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying...--Mark 10:35 

James and John the sons of Zebedee, who were Simon's partners. --Luke 5:10

James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father--Matthew 4:21 

We also know his occupation was a fisherman based these passages. St John the Apostle when writing his Gospel account never mentions himself by name when referring to himself, a sign of humility. He was the last Apostle to die and only to survive martyrdom. He compiled his last seeing information lacking in the other 3 accounts, and to refute errors.

The Gospel according to Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew.

The Apostle Matthew was also named Levi and his father was called Alphaeus.

As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him. --Matthew 9:9

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.--Mark 2:14

 From these passages we also learn his occupation was a tax collector.

The other two Gospel accounts were not written by apostles proper but rather by members of the 70 disciples Jesus sent out: Mark and Luke. From ancient tradition we are told St Mark got his account from the Apostle Peter son of John. Mark was a disciple of the Apostle Peter being called his "son" in 1 Peter 5:13. The account of St Luke according to its own account seems to suggest he consulted people like the Virgin Mary. Their father's names are not provided in scripture being less important. We are told that Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14) 

In response to the Islamic objection, it should be asked if they hold their sacred text to the same level of scrutiny. What was Muhammed's father? 

Revisiting Baptist claims on Holy Spirit baptism: Ephesians 1:12-13

 Previously,  I wrote on what the Holy Spirit baptism was and when it happened. Essentially, the Holy Spirit baptism is what is called in Western Catholic Confirmation, and in the East Chrismation. However, among Baptists who concede its undeniable that Scripture teaches baptism saves (eg Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21 etc.) they insist the baptism that saves is not water baptism but the dry baptism of the Holy Spirit which they typically claim comes at the moment you believe. While some might concede that the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts was not received until an Apostle appeared (eg Acts 8:16-19)

As evidence for the Holy Spirit baptism coming at the moment of belief being normative AFTER Acts they cite Ephesians:

That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,--Ephesians 1:12-13 (KJV)

Noting that it says "after...ye believed, ye were seal with that holy Spirit..." First, this verse says the seal of the Spirit came AFTER believing, not simultaneous. Second and most importantly, the Ephesians received the Holy Spirit after they were water baptized and then received the laying on of hands. In fact, Acts tell us exactly this:

And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve. --Acts 19:1-7

 The book of Ephesians tends to use more abstract terms, while other letters like Colossians, Romans, Timothy use more concrete terms like baptism, laying on of hands. In fact, Ephesians 2 is about baptism but never uses the term but only uses terms like "saved by faith" when the corresponding chapter in Colossians 2:12-13 refers to this as "baptism." Paul does similar in Ephesians 1 when talking about receiving the Spirit.

Acts has the typical order as 1) believe 2) baptized with water 3) Holy Spirit baptism by laying hands. The exceptions to this order is in Acts 10 with the gentiles and Cornelius who received the Spirit by the preaching of the Apostle Peter. This was done to show the Jewish Christians God has accepted the gentiles. Even Acts 10 we see the order returning to normal in Acts 19.

Some will cite the Holy Spirit in the letters of the Corinthians in a similar manner as Ephesians 1:12-13, but before Paul came to Ephesus they were in Corinth in Acts 18, Acts 19 mentions Apollos stayed behind there. What indication is there they followed the new Baptist order where the Holy Spirit comes the moment you believe?

This issue with baptismal regeneration is just another instance of some Reformed and Baptists redefining terms. When Scripture mentions baptism saves, they redefine the word "baptism" when no clarification that the Holy Spirit baptism is referred to in order to fit their theology. They redefine the word "eis" meaning "for" in Acts 2:38 to avoid the obvious conclusion that "baptism is for the remission of sins" and is used in the same way as Matthew 26:28 "the blood of the new covenant being shed FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN." In fact, confessional Reformed that deny baptism regeneration will also redefine the Creed of Constantinople's reference in a similar manner, despite the conciliar Fathers confessing baptismal regeneration. They redefine "justified" in James 2:24 to mean vindicated, or "justified before men" despite James citing the exact same verse St Paul does in Romans 4. Not to mention the abuse given to the word "imputed" when the Bible speaks of justification!, or the word "tetelestai"--"it is finished" which they concocted off of since revised claims about receipts to concoct evidence for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The solution at times is to appeal to fabricated, fictional definitions of words, or fanciful interpretations. 

St Albert the Great and women

UPDATE: This quote in question is from a work attributed to St Albert the Great but written by one of students (see below)

There is a quote that is presented by some journalists like Salon.com, academics, memes and feminists to demonstrate Christianity has a long history of misogyny. It is attributed to St Albert the Great and goes as follows:

Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.—Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

Like all good internet quotes, no source is cited. 

Fortunately, searching the quote one author did cite his source, though sadly it is obvious he did not read the context. The quote roughly taken from Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q 11. The name of the writing properly in English is "Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals." 

First, it should be noted that Albert the Great's Questions concerning "On Animals" was not written by Albert. The modern introduction to the work states:

In addition to his commentary on De animalibus, however, we have another work attributed to Albert the Great under the title Quaestiones super de animalibus (Questions concerning On Animals). This text represents a series of disputed questions on Aristotle's De animalibus, conducted in Cologne in 1258 and preserved in the report of Conrad of Austria from perhaps about the year 1260. Historians had long known of this work from medieval catalogues. Until 1922, however, it was thought to be lost to us. In 1922 a manuscript containing the Quaestiones was discovered in the Milanese Bibliotheca Ambrosiana. Additional manuscripts containing this work, or fragments of it, were uncovered between 1932 and 1952 in other libraries. A critical edition of the Latin text was prepared by Ephrem Filthaut and appeared in 1955 in volume 12 of the Opera omnia .. Alberti Magni in preparation in Cologne. 

In one sense, the Quaestiones super de animalibus (QDA) can be viewed as a useful companion piece to Albert's commentary on De animalibus. It represents Albert's attempt to introduce Aristotle's material to students in Cologne in his lectures during the year 1258. As such, QDA antedates his slightly later (and vastly larger) commentary, De animalibus. Although Albert did write down his commentary on De animalibusindeed, Stadler's Latin edition is based on an autograph copy Albert did not himself write down these lectures that form the QDA, and this presents the historian with an interesting problem. Although attributed to Albert the Great, the work is in fact a reportatio; that is, it contains what Albert taught about Aristotle's books on animals in Cologne in 1258, but the QDA itself represents the notes of Albert's student, Conrad of Austria, who heard Albert teaching. A few years later these questions were collected and redacted. Albert the Great can be considered the author of the work, but his imprint on the work is indirect rather than direct, and is mediated by Conrad of Austria. This means that one cannot properly distinguish the words of Albert from the words of the one reporting them. In addition, insofar as the text presents a quasi-Scholastic series of disputed questions based on Aristotle's De animalibus with a question posed, followed in most instances by evidence pro et contra and some sort of response or solution to the question neither is it always a simple matter to identify Albert's own position on a given question or to distinguish Albert's doctrine from other, contemporary sources for his discussion of this material. --INTRODUCTION Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9), pages 5-6

In short, the work is by Conrad, a student of Albert, and is based on St Albert's lectures, but the thoughts of Albert and Conrad cannot be distinguished. Since it's based on St Albert's lectures, the work is attributed to St Albert. What St Albert's position was is unclear. Perhaps investigating the work actually written by him. On Animals, might give clues.

Reading the section cited reveals a major problem with the quote--it's a hypothetical argument posed to St Albert, and not his own thoughts on the subject. As noted in the introduction, the format is similar to scholastic such as St Thomas Aquinas' Summa--question, evidence for and against, then a solution. This book is primarily about science as it was understood the Middle Ages, so it contains a lot of error, it's not meant to be theological, but more philosophical and biological.

The whole question reads as follows:

Whether the male is better suited for proper behavior [mores] than the female.

One inquires further whether the male is better suited for proper behavior than the female.

1. And it seems not. For an animal that is more teachable for proper behavior is more suitable. But according to the Philosopher in the beginning of the ninth book, the female is more teachable toward proper behavior than is the male. And this seems to be because of the argument that females resemble children, according to the Philosopher in this chapter. But children are more teachable than old people, as the Philosopher wishes in the second book of the Ethics. Therefore, etc.

2. In addition, prudence is an intellectual virtue. Without it, moral virtue cannot be perfected. But females are more prudent than males, as the Philosopher wishes. Therefore, etc.

The opposite is stated in the ninth book of this work, and this is clear. For generally, proverbially, and commonly it is affirmed that women are more mendacious and fragile, more diffident, more shameless, more deceptively eloquent, and, in brief, a woman is nothing but a devil fashioned into a human appearance. Thus I saw one like this at Cologne, who seemed to be a saint and yet, in brief, ensnared everyone with her love.

To this, one must reply that a female is less suited for proper behavior than is a male. For a female's complexion is moister than a male's, but it belongs to a moist complexion to receive [impressions] easily but to retain them poorly. For moisture is easily mobile and this is why women are inconstant and always seeking after new things. Therefore, when she is engaged in the act under one man, at that very moment she would wish, were it possible, to lie under another. Therefore, there is no faithfulness in a woman.

Believe me: if you believe her you will be deceived. Believe a teacher who has experienced it.

Moreover, an indication of this is that wise men almost never disclose their plans and their doings to their wives. For a woman is a flawed male and, in comparison to the male, has the nature of defect and privation, and this is why naturally she mistrusts herself. And this is why whatever she cannot acquire on her own she strives to acquire through mendacity and diabolical deceptions. Therefore, to speak briefly, one must be as mistrustful of every woman as of a venomous serpent and a horned devil, and if it were allowed to say what I know about women, it would stupefy the entire world.

1. On to the arguments. To the first, one must reply that instruction is of two types: for one is given concerning things that can be done [operabilibus] with respect to affect, and the other is given concerning things subject to cognition [intelligibilibus], and this consists in understanding and deliberating. As far as the first is concerned, the female is more teachable than the male, because she is more easily moved to different affects, toward which she is disposed. But as far as the second is concerned, the contrary obtains because the sensible powers are weaker in a woman owing to the coldness of her complexion, since she has a poorer sense of touch and, as a result, a weaker intellect.

2. To the second argument one must reply that a woman is not more prudent than a male, properly speaking, but she is cleverer. Therefore, prudence smacks of good, and cleverness smacks of evil. Therefore, the female is more prudent, that is, cleverer, than the male with respect to evil and perverse deeds, because the more nature departs from the one operation, the more it inclines toward the other. In this way, the woman falls short in intellectual operations, which consist in the apprehension of the good and in knowledge of truth and flight from evil. This is why one who inclines to evil inclines more to sensitive appetite, unless she is ruled by reason, as is apparent in the seventh book of the Ethics. Therefore, sense moves the female to every evil, just as intellect moves a man to every good. And this is why, etc.---St Albert the Great, Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q 11 also Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9)  pages 453-455

As we see, the original quote provided by the anonyomous citation was an argument provided by the questioner, then an ellipse was placed that skipped to the "St Albert's" supposed response to the claim. The writer's views are not without problem nonetheless, saying women are generally less intelligent. The statements about venomous serpent, horned devil, etc are part of an argument that is responded to. Whether St Albert actually said anything or what part of this in 1258 is uncertain.

Conclusion: This is actually the work of St Albert's student based on lectures by the saint. What St Albert said and agree with is uncertain. 

Tetelestai "paid in full" receipt update!

Part of the Calvinist (and evangelical) claim for penal substitution is invoking John 19:30 and indicating tetelestai is used, (although translated "it is finished" by virtually every translation) insisting the word is used in financial documents where its stamped or written at the top to indicate a debt was paid off. Therefore, it is concluded Christ was saying He just paid off the debt of the elect. Some older dictionaries did seem to indicate this, however, corrections have been made to the sources cited, showing...

TETELESTAI was not actually written at all.

I first became aware of this evidence though a reply on stackexchange. Linked is an article produced by a Lutheran journal on the matter, though the author agrees Christ "paid it in full" he states the tetelestai evidence is false, the phrase does not especially indicate paying a debt. contrary to many claims.

The stackexchange comment by Ryan S. states:

According to Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, "Receipts are often introduced by the phrase τετέλεσται, usually written in an abbreviated manner, e.g., P Grenf II. 50(a)(b)(c) al., mostly belonging to ii/A.D."

You can view Bernard Grenfell's (and Arthur Hunt's) publication of these receipts online: https://archive.org/details/newclassicalfrag00gren/page/78/mode/2up. They are customs tax receipts from the second and third centuries C.E. for transporting goods between the Fayoum and Memphis, Egypt. As the lexicon indicates, these customs tax receipts begin with the abbreviation τετελ, "tetel", except for P Grenf II. 50 f 2, which contains the word fully written. This publication transcribes the word as τετέλεσται, "tetelestai", and appears to be the basis for reading the abbreviation on the other receipts as τετέλ(εσται), "tetel(estai)". (The transcription is on p. 82 of the publication and labeled as Bodl. MSS. Gr. class g. 27 (P).)

However, a correction has been made to this reading since the publication. The fully written word is now transcribed as τετελώνιται, "tetelonitai," which is a different verb meaning "tax has been paid": http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.grenf;2;50f. As such, the abbreviated word is now transcribed as τετελ(ώνιται), "tetel(onitai)": E.g., http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.grenf;2;50a. 

I have not been able to find a picture of P Grenf II. 50 f 2 available online yet, but there are other customs tax receipts published since P Grenf II. 50 f 2 that have the fully written word as τετελώνιται, "tetelonitai"—-or the correct spelling of τετελώνηται "tetelonitai"—-and they are viewable online: E.g., https://berlpap.smb.museum/02707/; http://berlpap.smb.museum/02710/; and http://berlpap.smb.museum/04802/?lang=en. 

In my assessment, because (1) these receipts are specifically customs duty receipts and not receipts for a debt or bill payment, and (2) the abbreviated and fully written word indicating that the tax has been paid appears to actually be τετελώνηται "tetelonitai" rather than τετέλεσται, "tetelestai", it does not seem that there is a connection between these receipts and John 19:30, or Col 2:13–14 for that matter.

First the entry from Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament page 30 can be seen below:

The papyri P Grenf II. 50(a) (and c and d) shown below evidence cited was originally based on the below work with what was presumed then to be tetelestai abbreviated as tetel with the ending shown as (estai):

However, these papyri have been re-evaluated and words were corrected since its first publication. Below we can see the reading for P Grenf II. 50(a) was corrected and a note for the previous reading:

As you can see per note 1 which reads:

1. BL 1.188 : τετέλ(εσται) prev. ed.

Showing that (εσται) was replaced with (ώνηται). This is the case for the others in the papyri listed as examples by Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.

Below is P Grenf II. 50(b)

and so on.

Needless to say, the tetelestai claim was based in part outdated scholarship.

Even if, hypothetically, tetelestai meant "paid in full" it does not change it does not fit the context of John 19 considering John 19:28 uses the word in reference to the fulfilment of prophecy, not mention of paying debts. In fact, the sources cited refer to paying a tax for importing goods, the only time the root is used in the NT for money is when paying taxes.