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.
The idea that Mary is divine has no basis in scripture. Mary was a virgin chosen by God to bear Jesus. and nothing more.
This difference in doctrine is in fact a major difference between the Catholics and say the Baptists.
Therefore, Mary is mother of God. Problems?
You cannot receive human nature if you are divine and eternal unless you've assumed nature present in creation. Mary is simply the person whom God receives human nature from. Otherwise, He has not taken on, nor assumed any part of His creation.
What is not assumed by God's divinity is not saved.
“What we call the Bible are sacred books and letters assembled and so recognized and authenticated by the Catholic Church.”
What I call the Bible are writings inspired by God,
spoken through men as they were moved by God, 2/3
of which were given to God’s people, the Jewish nation,
which the early Christian Church recognized and accepted.
To this were added the books written by Apostles, and
a couple that had the ring of authority and truth.
“He Himself recognized her in one of his last seven words from the cross.”
Could you also share a passage where Christ refers to Mary
as Mother of God?
best,
ampu
Petronski,
The Church recognizes that Christ has two natures, joined
in one hypostatic union in one person. Nestorianism did not.
I hold the same position as the historic Church.
In this discussion, I am pointing out that Christ’s divine
nature existed before His birth - He did not receive it from
Mary.
Are you advocating that Christ did not have a divine nature
or existence before his human birth?
Thanks,
ampu
Here’s how I see it. All babies look like Winston Churchill.
Churchill had an English father and American mother. Jesus was half human, though without sin. The Son of Man, and God.
And he had a number of siblings: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his BRETHREN, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” Matthew 13:55-56
Common experience tells us that the birth canal is not a one way street—there’s no such thing, at least in our species, as parthenogenesis. Mary was “intact” when she became pregnant with Him—if you ignore the passage about what a swell guy Joseph was for marrying her even though she was, um, in a `delicate condition’—because she was artificially inseminated by an Angel, right? So Jesus had to be the oldest and, well, there it is.
I hope that clears things up for you all.
What is not assumed by God is not saved, unless God takes on human nature, he cannot purify his creatures. This is the mystery of the incarnation. God "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;" (ASV Phil 7:2)
If Jesus did not assume his humanity from his creation, namely from Mary, how did he get it? How can Jesus assume the nature of man without assuming the nature of man? Only in Jesus is sin obliterated, do not we believe this? That the Son of Man has the power to forgive sins?
What if Jesus popped right out of thin air? Why go through the trouble of birth?
Because, he wanted to be intimately united to man, this is why he shares a genealogy in Matthew's Gospel.
In Jesus the divine and the creature are united, and by that, our humanity is saved by the obedience of one sinless man.
Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. All of Him. His natures are not and cannot be separated.
Oh my.
Wow.
I think you misread the post. There were literally scores of “sacred” books, letters, writings, and epistles. It was the Catholic Church as founded by the Christ and divinely inspired that separated these documents into what found their way into the Bible and what did not. In short, the book we call the Bible is what the Church authenticated as the “Word of God.”
As for your second point “Could you also share a passage where Christ refers to Mary as Mother of God?” has been answered by proof that she bore the Son of Man with a divine and human nature [hence Son of Man and Son of God] and is in one with the Father and the Spirit. What more do you need?
Upon learning that she will bear a child Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:34).
“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: therefore also that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.’ And Mary said, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ And the angel departed from her” (Luke 1: 35-38).”
When then doesn’t it stand to reason, that a Mother who gave birth to the Son of God, is the Mother of God?
Petronski,
Your skillful answer avoided my question.
The very council that condemned nestorianism
defined the hypostatic union as, the two natures
(divine and human) united in the one person.
Even the council “identified” that Christ has
two natures.
I do too. In this light, I ask you whether Christ
had a divine nature before His conception? I hope
you recognize that the answer is yes. To argue
that He had neither a divine nor a human nature
before his conception would leave you arguing
that He is a created being. I’m sure you don’t
want to argue that, since it will lead you to
fellowship with Arianism.
Since Christ had a divine nature and was fully
God before his conception in Mary’s womb, she
did not give rise to His divine nature.
Was she the mother of Jesus Christ? Yes.
Was she divine? No.
Did she create His divine nature? No.
Did she bear His divine nature combined
with His human nature in her womb? Yes.
“This heresy is part of a campaign to elevate Mary to the status of co-redemptrix, absent any scriptural authority for so doing.”
Co-redemptrix doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s no different than co-worker. Mary is the co-redemptrix because she bore Christ, and thus worked alongside Christ to bring about the redemption of mankind.
“Even Mary says in Luke 1:46,47 that she’s in need of a savior. She gave birth to Jesus but that doesn’t make her divine; blessed and very special, yes. The Holy Ghost covered Mary with a “shadow” in Luke 1:35. What this shadow was or is or does is just the mystery of God. Not everything can be or should be explained to us lest we take that explanation and bastardize it and make it mean what WE want it to mean. Peace to everyone and love for all good things.”
“My spirit rejoices in God my saviour”. No, she was not divine, but she was most blessed among women and preserved by Christ from the stain of sin at her conception.
“I think you misread the post.
No, I think I understood your post clearly. I also know
the history of the cannonization of Scripture - 2/3 of
which was written and cannonized by the Jewish nation
before the Church existed.
“As for your second point “Could you also share a passage where Christ refers to Mary as Mother of God?” has been answered by proof that she bore the Son of Man with a divine and human nature
Here, I think perhaps you misunderstand my point.
You attempted to prove that Mary is The Mother of God,
by pointing to a verse where Christ refers to her as His
mother. I asked for a verse where Christ calls her The
Mother of God. Or, in fact, any verse in the Bible.
This, you won’t find. It comes from tradition that the
magisterium made into doctrine.
I have not objection to anyone believing whatever they
wish. I object to trying to pass things off as Christian
when they are extra-Christian in origin.
best,
ampu
yes, just what i said
“You attempted to prove that Mary is The Mother of God,
by pointing to a verse where Christ refers to her as His
mother. I asked for a verse where Christ calls her The
Mother of God. Or, in fact, any verse in the Bible.
This, you won’t find. It comes from tradition that the
magisterium made into doctrine.”
Christ actually goes far beyond this point. Christ refers to his mother as the mother of mankind, just as Christ was the Son of Man.
What does he say to Peter before he dies on the cross? You know your scripture. He says, “Son, behold your Mother, Mother behold your Son.”
Why on earth would he say so, and what on earth does he mean by it? Mary is the new Eve, the Eve long fortold who’s son would crush the head of the serpent way back in Genesis.
I have not objection to anyone believing whatever they
wish. I object to trying to pass things off as Christian
when they are extra-Christian in origin.
“Christ actually goes far beyond this point. Christ refers to his mother as the mother of mankind, just as Christ was the Son of Man.”
Verse please.
“Mary is the new Eve, the Eve long fortold who’s son would crush the head of the serpent way back in Genesis.”
Not so much. No new Eve. Though the Son of God is prophecied
to crush the head of the serpent.
He provides for Mary as a good Son does. To extrapolate that
into Mary becoming the Mother of all humanity says more than
the passage says - in english or greek.
1. We are speaking here about the Bible. Of course the Church took into account various factors in making an authentic selection including some texts and eliminating others. This “process of selection” was authoritatively conducted by the Catholic Church and by none other.
2. Does one need to provide a recorded statement of a son calling a parent his mother to demonstrate conclusive proof of motherhood? That Mary is the Mother of God comes not from sacred tradition alone but scriptural references such as the message given Mary from the Angel Gabriel and the last words of Christ (The Son of Man and the Son of God) addressing Mary as his “Mother” . There is no need to split hairs here if this is what you require.
If Jesus calls Mary Mother, then obviously Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Who is Jesus?
If Jesus is the person of united natures of God and Man, then what is said of his manhood is said of his Godhead.
Jesus is united in his humanity and in his Godhead.
What then is said of his humanity is said of his divinity.
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.