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.
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.
“You are right: in fact it does contradict scripture in
many ways.”
Whoa, please stop right here. Don’t put words into my mouth.
My argument is very clear. The process by which the Church defined the trinity is no different than what happened with the immaculate conception.
Yes, it’s true that there is no explicit reference to her immaculate conception just as there is no explicit reference to the trinity. The trinity as we understand it today, comes from the Athanasian Creed, developed after the Council of Constantinople, explicitly called to settle the issues brought up by Arianism, and Nestorianism and Monophysitism, and Monotheletism.
All of these are deviations from Trinitarian Christianity, in the sense that they deny one part of the question. Where does Scripture say anything about homooisus, or ‘one in being with the father?’ These are all creedal formulas developed by the Church in response to these heresies about Christ’s nature and the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.
This is no difference then what occured WRT to the immaculate conception. The understanding of Mary has not changed, I can find support from Church fathers predating the scripture as we know it today where they say the exact same thing I am here, Mary is the second eve, kept free from Sin.
I have been alluding to passages where this is the case, like the Trinity, where the status of Mary is hinted at and revealed in bits and pieces.
“Although the word “ Trinity” does not exist the
concept is made manifest in many places ( Matthew 28:9
identifies the three persons, and Luke 3:21-22 highlights
the existence of the triune God.”
And what of Genesis 3:15
“And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
And 1 Corinthians 15:45-9
“So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.”
This applies to Mary also. For if Christ is to be the New Adam, he must be purified of the stain of sin, such that his human nature is wholly human wholly man, and yet purified of what we call cuncuspisence, or the desire and temptation to sin.
If we say as you do, that Mary’s immaculate conception is irrelevant, then how do we explain that Christ’s human nature lacked the desire to sin?
The Church fathers answered this question, the way that I am answering it now. The reason he inherited his human nature is because his mother was purified at her conception by Christ himself. Thus, when Christ was born he could inherit his human nature from her pure from sin.
It’s not ‘marian’ theology, it’s got everything to do with the Incarnation.
It is John, and thanks for the correction. I remember the quote but not the disciple!
You mistakenly addressed your post to me. That is not my quote.
You watch too much StarTrek!
I forgot Jesus saying that he could could lay down his life and take it up again and the Mt. where he met up with Moses and Elijah.
Though I am not a Christian, I am constantly and pleasantly impressed with the manners of Christians!
I want to know how his disciples knew who was Elijah, and who was Moses, when they asked if they should build booths for them.
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.