rschristopher / R.S. Christopher is on Nostr

seeking the most powerful money, and the most powerful.

Last Notes

2026-03-20 06:31:11 UTC

- reply

Not to defend bad Catholics (which include many a Pope), but the official teachings of the Catholic Church are rock solid on all these topics.
And that they survive at all (despite literal pedophiles and communists trying to destroy them from within) is telling.
The gates of hell have legit not prevailed on either East or West. Despite murderous attempts that came close (especially in the East).
The official teaching on even the most objectionable Marian dogma is still Biblically sound (and fully aligned with patristic consensus) , e.g., “Mediatrix” is perhaps the most “Mary worship” title you can possibly imagine. The name seems to imply you can worship Mary. But then you read CCC 970, which is the explanation for this title, and it’s “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer” … “Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power.”
Marian dogma is basically: Mary helps you to understand Christ, because she is His mother. Luke records Mary’s fiat for a reason. She is prominent in the New Testament for a reason. The reason: do not worship and do not ignore Mary (the Mother of God).
All of Catholic teachings are like this, which is why Trad Catholics still exist and are going strong (one of the few remaining civilized populations that doesn’t have a fertility crisis).
Now, are there bad Catholics that act like they worship Mary (and not just venerate)? Yep, and there’s even worse Catholics that want female priests and gay marriages. The enemy is everywhere, and they are deep into the upper echelons within the Vatican.
It’s not a question of where Catholics went wrong … that goes back at least to AD 1054 … the question is where Christians went wrong, and the schisms in His church are obviously what went wrong. The subtle pride that leads to and maintains schisms, which simply cedes ground to the adversary, is what is wrong.

2026-03-20 05:22:44 UTC

- reply

Agree, like I said, if you get into the nuances the disagreements tend to vanish.
The workaround I saw from good reformed theology was that the inheritance of corruption (or original sin) is prevented by the virgin birth, and that the sin or sinlessness of Mary is irrelevant.
My personal view is that Mary was sinless (as there’s more to “virgin birth” than just a lack of sexual union), but I agree with this view that ultimately it doesn’t matter to the deeper question of salvation.

2026-03-20 04:46:35 UTC

- reply

It’s the *inseparable* part of Chalcedon that inevitably creates the perceived conflict with PSA and Mary. I say perceived because the entire debate is often based on mischaracterizations and gets so nuanced that it feels like linguistic differences from one culture to another; everyone gets hyper critical, and mischaracterizations become rampant. Which means we’re over an important target since the demons get so riled up.
The short of it: you either end up with Immaculate Conception, or you reject PSA, and if you try to avoid this dilemma (rejecting Immaculate Conception but holding PSA), you get de-facto Nestorianism.
This is an oversimplification, obviously, but there is something to it, and the history of reformed theology does show this (as many reformed groups ended up in Nestorianism, refusing to call Mary Theotokos).
Nestorianism was defeated long before the full throated PSA was articulated. Cyril held a substitutionary view but focused on theosis/deification, and victory over sin/death/devil, that our corrupted nature could now be *healed* because of Christ taking our place on the cross, overcoming death, ascending as a man into heaven to sit at the right of the Father.

2026-03-20 04:15:49 UTC

- reply

Ironically, most of the reformers, including Calvin, held very positive views of Mary (including perpetual virginity) and would likely be appalled to see how modern Protestants treat her.
To be fair, of all the things that would shock people of that era, this would be low on the list, seeing their congregations turn into Unitarian mockeries (funding abortions, openly gay female pastors, etc) would be higher on their outrage list.
Agree though their soteriology was the culprit. You end up, inevitably, either with Immaculate Conception or you have to demote Mary in a way that ends up in Nestorianism. I think that’s why iconoclasm was fashionable with many reformers, ignoring Mary helped them to avoid Nestorianism and Immaculate Conception while still holding Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

2026-03-20 03:10:11 UTC

- reply

She is not divine, by definition, she is created. Angels also aren’t divine. Theologically, only those possessing the divine nature are divine. It is literally the essence of God which is divine, revealed as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (technically also the grace of God is divine, but that’s a separate topic).
Importantly, Christ is both human AND divine, this is key to understanding Mary and her role.
While I have no doubt one can find poetic language from some that use “divine mother”, theologically no one claims her as divine. Usually it’s “blessed mother” or Theotokos or similar language of proper veneration.
Even in the “Immaculate Conception”(which the East rejects), or “Queen of Heaven” doctrines, they explicitly do not refer to Mary as divine, they use expressions like “highest veneration”, because “divine” is and can only be God.
Understand: what you worship will determine what you venerate. E.g., if you worship wealth you’ll venerate symbols of wealth, fancy cars and designer clothes, but even an idolatrous person isn’t worshipping clothes, they venerate the clothes (because they worship wealth). We all, by design, only worship one thing.
Another example: Protestants don’t worship the Bible, they venerate the Bible (something more Catholics and Eastern Orthodox should do, but I digress).
This is the sense of “highest veneration”, because to worship God fully, means necessarily to venerate His mother. This is also why the “Mary worship” criticisms are so stupid.
No one I’ve ever heard, even the famous heretics throughout history, would refer to Mary as divine wife of God the Father.
Mary is the “new Eve”.
And conversely, she is not “sister” the way, e.g., Mary Magdalene would be.
Mary is the Mother of God. You end up in painful Christological heresies when you try to demote her, usually Nestorianism and/or Arianism. And this is because she birthed the Son of God, who is divine (and human). Theologically, this is necessary as He is the mediator between man and God (between the created and the divine).
If you dig deep into Revelation, Mary as the “new Eve” and as “mother” and even “Queen of heaven” (the Queen mother), weave throughout Isaiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Psalms and even back to Genesis.
Although if the deeper theological reasons don’t do it for you, you should simply refer to Mary as “mother” because Christ told you to:
“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
~ John 19:26-27

2026-03-14 19:15:47 UTC

Got myself in trouble on X, I forgot it’s hateful to notice things and call for repentance. The offending tweet/comment was about Netanyahu:
This is so bizarre.
If I’m understanding correctly, Netanyahu is signaling to Biblically illiterate Christians to support a religious ethnostate that is antithetical to Christianity, a religion he himself doesn’t believe in?
And he wants them to support a genocide of his neighbors?! referring to them as “Amalek” (despite them being Persian and explicitly not the long extinct Amalekites).
Weirder still is that Netanyahu is secular, and does not actually believe in Amalek, let alone the “return” of the very Messiah that his own religious ethnostate denies is the prophesied Messiah.
This is entirely too much cognitive and ideological dissonance.
In a secular worldview, talk of Amalek is metaphorical for genocide, and talk of the Messiah is simply nonsensical.
To a secular person, Netanyahu sounds deranged and bloodthirsty.
To a Christian, Netanyahu sounds like he’s speaking from the “synagogue of Satan” from Revelation 3:9 (those “who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie”).
To a religious Jew, Netanyahu is violating Torah, following in the path of Manasseh, ignoring the very clear warnings from Moses (in Deuteronomy) of blessings and curses on the people of Israel.
The only coherent response to all of this is repentance, sackcloth and ashes like Nineveh.
May God have mercy on us,
https://image.nostr.build/6ff2d22375d20a7440e4ae5c74fc8fbccfec017b305516bcbbc4cb8a0b562108.jpg