Posted on 01/02/2010 3:32:55 PM PST by NYer
The title "Mother of God" is offensive to some Protestant Christians because they believe that this title raises Mary to an inappropriate, even idolatrous, level -- the level of God Himself. There is also genuine confusion on the part of others -- including Catholics -- about how a finite creature (Mary) could be the "mother" of an eternal being. "Wouldn't Mary have had to exist before God in order to be His mother?", they reason.
Referring to Mary as "Mother of God," however, does not imply that she existed from all eternity (like God) or that she is the source of Jesus' divine nature. Mary was and is a human being. She is the Mother of God because she gave birth to the God-Man, Jesus, "the Word made flesh" (John 1).
The reality of Mary's divine maternity was proclaimed a dogma of the faith by the Council of Ephesus in 431, and this teaching contains two important affirmations:
1) Mary is truly a mother. Since Jesus had no human father, Mary contributed all genetic material to the formation of His human nature. As Pope John Paul II states in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater, "[Jesus] is the flesh and blood of Mary!" (see Catechism 485)
2) Mary conceived and bore the Second Person of the Trinity. Echoing the Nestorian heresy (which denied the inseparable unity of two natures of Christ in one Person), some Protestant Christians hold that Mary was the mother of Jesus' human nature only. But a mother does not give birth to a nature; she gives birth to a person. Since Jesus is a divine Person, it is logical that Mary be called the "Mother of God" (in Greek, Theotokos), even if this mystery has aspects that exceed our human understanding.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) teaches
Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus," Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord." In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos). [CCC 495]
The word Theotokos also helps us to understand this teaching a little better. The word literally means "God bearer," not "God generator." To "generate" God would imply that one is His origin, but this cannot be true because God exists from all eternity. To "bear" God means to hold him in one's womb. Historic Christianity (i.e., the Catholic and Orthodox churches) believe that Mary actually bore God (in the person of Jesus Christ) in her womb. Jesus didn't "become God" when He left her womb.
To deny Mary's divine maternity is to cast doubt on the reality of Jesus' divinity. Mary's divine maternity is, then, essentially a "Christological" dogma in that it affirms the divine Personhood of Jesus. To emphasize the profound importance of this teaching, the Church has restored the ancient feast of Mary, Mother of God on January 1.
Since we have been reborn as children of God in baptism and now share in the divine life through grace, Mary has become our mother as well. By drawing near to her as our mother, we draw near to Jesus Himself, the source of our salvation. This is why devotion to Mary is so essential to the life of the Christian, and why the Church encourages us to foster a greater love for the Blessed Mother in our lives.
One final point. It is interesting to note that two of the early Protestant leaders, Martin Luther and John Calvin, taught Mary's divine maternity and even condemned those who denied this essential truth.
What is the scripture that supports this proposition?
And to this day, orthodox Protestants agree. Only fringe groups part ways on this.
On the other hand, since there is no example in scripture, Protestants do not accept that a human in Heaven can hear and answer prayers--only the all present, all knowing and all powerful God can do that.
You know, don’t you, that the “extra books”
(old testtament period) are not accepted
by the Jews. Interesting, no ?
Yes, but that was not always so. Jews back in the time of Christ accepted them.
“What is the scripture that supports this proposition?”
You said it was unscriptural. I take that to mean that it contradicts scripture, not merely that it isn’t explicitly stated in scripture.
For example, would you consider the Trinity to be unscriptural?
Interesting Scripture you have there.
I don’t know.......you know men.....
Not to mention, utterly unnecessary. The divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, God’s Messiah, is not in any sense dependent upon how Mary, his mortal mother, was conceived, or how she lived her life as a wife and mother after having given birth to Jesus, or the manner of disposal of her mortal remains upn her death.
Having read and studied the Gospels, and indeed the entire Christian Bible, it is difficult for me to comprehend, intellectually and logically, why it should be necessary to write a statement such as I just did for the edification of people who profess to be Christians.
But I have such hopes for you! That is why people work on mass production of vaccinations for flu, when all you would have to do is stay away from the sick people!
And we need all the smart rational and virtuous people like you we can get to fend off the global warming religion, the marxist religion, the eugenics religion, the mercantilist religion, etc.
I thought it was John to whom he said that.
The death of Mary is also not scripturally attested, so it is ambiguous whether she died and was buried, or was assumed into heaven.
If she was free of the taint of original sin, and never sinned during her life, (and wouldn’t that be a nice thing to do for your mother?) then if the wages of sin is (are) death, with out sin, then no need for death as a punishment. Again, what a nice thing to do for your mother, if you could.
Theological speculation, but with some bit of logic behind it.
Deuteronomy 5.2 calls out three different persons of G-d.
Hear oh Israel, the Lords, thy G-d, is One.
HVAC is cool!
Again, I am perplexed at your ability to hold
2 contradictory positions: if you are against the
false “ religions “ that you cited, how can you
hold with the false religion of evolution, one
that is organically linked to eugenics and ideologically
to Marxism.
I am merely convinced by the evidence of evolution, much of which was known before Darwin wrote. Geologists used variations in shell fossils to find oil deposits. That these variations exist is just fact.
My understanding is that eugenics is a heresy combining the false doctrine of mercantilism with the theory of evolution. Evolution is working on us now, making us shorter, fatter, more fecund, with significant changes to the human phenotype occuring due to competition.
Demographics is destiny. Hope you have lots of children!
The thing is that when Scripture is definite, if we gainsay any part of it, then the whole of Scripture goes into the trash heap and instead of the Reformation tradition of creating new theologies of of existing (or partial) Scripture, we wind up with the Restoration (LDS) tradition of making up new Scripture. We either have Scripture and the Deposit of the Faith including the Catechism, or we have the created things of men.
Every man is fallible; even Augustine's writings are not all considered Church teaching. There were a number that are outside the Church.
Or Really HOT!
I think that the doctrine is that all scripture is profitable for teaching faith and morals. That does not mean that every teaching you can come up with from scripture is valid.
The classic case is the “Primitive Hardshell Baptist” lay minister who allegedly did a study on the italicized words in the King James version, and had several (to him) key theological truths that he derived from them. Of course the italicized words were the additions thought by the translators to be needed for their standards of grammatical corrections, and are completely missing from the Hebrew/Greek/Latin/French bibles that were used as source by the King James committee.
His theological burblings may be valid, but may not be, but his attempt to use scripture to back them is certainly without merit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.