Any non catholic: what is your opinion on Mary the Mother of God?

[Roy5]

Sorry, but not enough time for a long discussion, Just two points here in response to Gary Taylor.

1. I don't believe for a moment that Baptists ever included prayers to Mary. That might have been possible in the case of Luther (though I don't think so), but most Protestants have always objected to what they often view as Mary worship. So, this does not represent a change within Protestantism. Mary always was honored but never the center of adoration or seen as having special powers over Christ, hence a favored vehicle to achieve intercession. 

2. My impression still remains that the most popular prayer within Catholicism is the 'Hail Mary'. True, we recite the 'Our Father' at Mass, but when we recite the Rosary it is ten 'Hail Marys' for every "Our Father'. Now maybe not that many Catholics recite the Rosary, and then you would be right.

 

[elvisman]

Sorry, but not enough time for a long discussion, Just two points here in response to Gary Taylor.

1. My impression still remains that the most popular prayer within Catholicism is the ‘Hail Mary’. True, we recite the ‘Our Father’ at Mass, but when we recite the Rosary it is ten ‘Hail Marys’ for every "Our Father’. Now maybe not that many Catholics recite the Rosary, and then you would be right.

Actually - it was I who addressed the charge.
I would just say that you couldn’t possibly know unless you took a poll.

---

Secondly – I would like you to address my question to you about why you find the 2nd part of the Hail Mary to be so disturbing.

---

Thirdly – please address my comments about your charge that Catholic “Mary worship” is based in pagan goddess worship. I laid out a rebuttal of your comments in post #36 and completely glossed over them.

---

**PS - **Am I to understand that you are Catholic (a member of the Catholic Church)?

 

[pablope]

I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage, and am interested in reconciliation.

The Catholic view of Mary has been a problem for me. Why?

I will reply to some in your post/s:

1. It troubles me that the most popular prayer among Catholics if the ‘Hail, Mary’ rather than the prayer Christ taught us to say, True, the first part of the prayer is taken from scripture, but the last part was added and is where the problem exists.

 

[Roy5]

My point re the second part of the ‘Hail, Mary’ is that it is not found in the Bible.

As for Paul, it seems strange to me that Mary is not mentioned in any of his epistles (or other epistles in the New Testament). Now, if Mary was so central in early Christian worship and/or theology, as is claimed, I feel that he would have at least made some reference to her. This absence supports the idea - at least in my mind - that veneration of Mary developed over the years and was unimportant or less important among the early Christians. Apart from a passing reference, Mary is not mentioned in the book of Acts, either.

 This is not to dishonor Mary in any way. Obviously, she is to be honored. But there is a large chasm between honoring her and elevating her to the position that can appear to be that of a goddess, There are even those in the church who would make her co-redeemer. 

I even have some hesitation referring to her as 'Mother of God', A mother is someone who creates a person within her body, as it were. Mary certainly did not create God, as God is/was eternal. God, in fact, created Mary. Mary created the earthly abode of Jesus. So, Mary, as it were, 'housed' the Son of God. I know that this is some heresy - was it Nestorianism and/or perhaps Arianism?  - but I guess I've reached the stage where being tagged a heretic doesn't alarm me. God is just and knows when we make every effort to love the Lord and our fellow human beings, and Christ cited those two commandments when he was asked by the lawyer how one can obtain eternal life. See the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the hero was quite a 'heretic' himself, despised by the Jews of that era.

 Those of us who seek to follow Christ must be careful about judging, quick to appreciate the sincere faith of others even when it may differ from our own. I saw a bumper sticker the other day which read something like this. "Religion has favorites. God doesn't." I tend to think that way myself. Religion so often preaches love, humility and peace while fomenting bigotry, arrogrance, and hostility. Sorry, but history seems to prove that.

 As Christians, one of our challenges is to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier. This whole notion that there is only one true religion and it's mine - that troubles me and seems (to me( to conflict with the spirit of Christ who was quick to dine with sinners and publicans.

 

[elvisman]

My point re the second part of the ‘Hail, Mary’ is that it is not found in the Bible.

As for Paul, it seems strange to me that Mary is not mentioned in any of his epistles (or other epistles in the New Testament). Now, if Mary was so central in early Christian worship and/or theology, as is claimed, I feel that he would have at least made some reference to her. This absence supports the idea - at least in my mind - that veneration of Mary developed over the years and was unimportant or less important among the early Christians. Apart from a passing reference, Mary is not mentioned in the book of Acts, either.
The Letters of the New Testament are** all **centered on problems within a certain community. If something is not mentioned – it is usually because there is no problem with it in that community. Paul doesn’t explicitly address the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union but that doesn’t make them any less true.

This is not to dishonor Mary in any way. Obviously, she is to be honored. But there is a large chasm between honoring her and elevating her to the position that can appear to be that of a goddess, There are even those in the church who would make her co-redeemer.

**Simply because some people go too far *****doesn’t ***mean that the Church is wrong. As for the use of the term, “Co-Redeemer” – this is a common Protestant/anti-Catholic blunder.

“Co” Redemptrix doesn’t mean that Mary is on even par with Jesus in our redemption. It means that she cooperates with God’s salvific plan. It is not used in the 21st century American English sense of the word – as in “Co-Host”.
In a sense, we are** ALL**** Co-redeemers with Christ – according to James 5:19-20.**

I even have some hesitation referring to her as ‘Mother of God’, A mother is someone who creates a person within her body, as it were. Mary certainly did not create God, as God is/was eternal. God, in fact, created Mary. Mary created the earthly abode of Jesus. So, Mary, as it were, ‘housed’ the Son of God. I know that this is some heresy - was it Nestorianism and/or perhaps Arianism? - but I guess I’ve reached the stage where being tagged a heretic doesn’t alarm me. God is just and knows when we make every effort to love the Lord and our fellow human beings, and Christ cited those two commandments when he was asked by the lawyer how one can obtain eternal life. See the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the hero was quite a ‘heretic’ himself, despised by the Jews of that era.

I don’t know of one, single, solitary mother who EVER “created” a baby as you claim. GOD is the creator of all – but that doesn’t make a mother any less of a mother.

What you have concocted by attempting to splitthe 2 indivisible natures of Christ IS heresy – whether you think it is or not. I’m sure** Nestorius**** and Arias didn’t think* they espoused heresy either.*

Those of us who seek to follow Christ must be careful about judging, quick to appreciate the sincere faith of others even when it may differ from our own. I saw a bumper sticker the other day which read something like this. “Religion has favorites. God doesn’t.” I tend to think that way myself. Religion so often preaches love, humility and peace while fomenting bigotry, arrogrance, and hostility. Sorry, but history seems to prove that.

As Christians, one of our challenges is to make religion a bridge rather than a barrier. This whole notion that there is only one true religion and it’s mine - that troubles me and seems (to me( to conflict with the spirit of Christ who was quick to dine with sinners and publicans.

Wrong**.**
We Christians must not be judgmental(self-righteous) – but we MUST judge between right and wrong. If somebody is espousing untruth about God – it is our DUTY to correct and admonish them. Religion should only be a bridge to truth – not a bridge to nowhere. . .

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;7548298] Why is the last part a problem? Look at the last part again:

Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.

In the prayer, it is asking for Mary to pray for us sinners now till we die. Do you see any thing wrong with that? You have prayed, and have been asked to pray for someone, have you not? And intercession prayers is Biblical. If someone was praying for you, would you get mad and reject the prayer?

If I may, from a Lutheran perspective, add this, my friend.

You ask if there is anything wrong with invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and I say no! However, I will say that, as the Lutheran confessions present, there is no promise, command, or example from scripture, even the deuterocanon, for invocation of saints. There is also no condemnation of it.
So the issue, for me, is not the practice, as Luke 15:7 seems to indicate an awareness of the events on Earth by the saints in Heaven, but the holding of the conscience of the Christian to believe it.

Look at the second line…“pray for us sinners”…when we catholics pray it, we are not asking Mary to pray for me alone, but for all sinners, including you, Roy…(unless you think you have not sinned). Is there anyting wrong with that?

I would say it might be better to ask God to listen to the prayers of the saints on our behalf, as they certainly do pray for us, at least in a general way.

Mary, being our gracious advocate, we are asking for her intercession, and that way, we are led to Jesus, the fruit of her womb. And with Her prayers, we may be made worthy of Christ’s love…to not sin anymore which offend God, which is the will of the Father.

She, and all of the saints are advocates for us, and I pray God listen to their advocacy.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

“Co” Redemptrix doesn’t mean that Mary is on even par with Jesus in our redemption. It means that she cooperates with God’s salvific plan. It is not used in the 21st century American English sense of the word – as in “Co-Host”.
In a sense, we are ALL Co-redeemers with Christ – according to James 5:19-20.

Now, this I agree with.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

I will leave this open ended, because I want as many responses as possible. I am curious what our separated brethren think.

Well, she is the mother of God, to begin with! She is a model for all believers, and because of her role in salvation history she is fittingly celebrated in the Eastern liturgy as “higher than the cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim.” At the same time, this can also be said (in a lesser degree) of other believers. In other words, Mary doesn’t differ qualitatively from her brothers and sisters–she is an example of the deification to which we are all called.

I believe that it is a legitimate pious practice to ask the glorified saints to pray for us, and it is fitting that Mary should be the saint most often called on. I don’t have a problem with the extravagant language often used in Catholic devotion as long as it is understood in such a manner as to strengthen and not weaken our faith in the Incarnation.

My only significant problem with Catholic Marian piety is that at times it has appeared to treat Mary as if she were a more sympathetic figure than Jesus. Contrary to the claim of many Protestants, this isn’t exalting Mary above Jesus–quite the reverse. It’s exalting Jesus in an unorthodox way, as if His divinity somehow took away from his humanity.

I also think that the Roman Communion is too fond of doctrinal definitions, and the two recent Marian definitions (by “recent” I mean in the past couple centuries!) were at best unnecessary, it seems to me. Doctrinally, I question the Immaculate Conception, but I don’t regard the matter as being of huge importance, and I accept the teaching of Christian Tradition that Mary was (to use a Wesleyan phrase) “entirely sanctified” from her mother’s womb.

Edwin

 

[pablope]

If I may, from a Lutheran perspective, add this, my friend.

You ask if there is anything wrong with invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and I say no! However, I will say that, as the Lutheran confessions present, there is no promise, command, or example from scripture, even the deuterocanon, for invocation of saints. There is also no condemnation of it.
So the issue, for me, is not the practice, as Luke 15:7 seems to indicate an awareness of the events on Earth by the saints in Heaven, but the holding of the conscience of the Christian to believe it.

 

[Roy5]

Now, if Christians want to refer to Mary as the ‘Mother of God’ - fine. I don’t try to determine the content of the faith of other Christians, and I don’t think they should insist upon all the dimensions and elements of my faith, either. That’s why I am always harping on the importance of a ‘big tent’ Christianity, where there is freedom for those who would seek to follow Christ while having different interpretations. I, for one, don’t want a ‘stright=jacket’ religion, but one which permits intellectual freedom. Dismiss this as egotism or whatever you like, but I am not ready to turn my mind over to any church or preacher. As for the Bible, it obviously is unclear at many places. “Even the devil can quote scripture…” I certainly don’t believe that God committed some of those heinous atrocities attributed to him in the Old Testament. Now, do I believe that, for example, he was the author in any sense of such wild verses as Ex. 22:18, 20 - etc.

But, again, why do I have trouble with Mary as the "Mother of God’? Here’s my thinking in a capsule. Mary was the mother of the human Jesus, of course, but was she the mother of the divinity of Christ? That’s where I question the doctrine that was eventually formulated by the Councils, as the veneration of Mary increased. That divinity had no mother or father. It was from the beginning - and it ever shall be… So, to me can be grossly misleading to refer to Mary as the ‘Mother of God’. It was quite enough that she was honored to become the mother of the human Jesus without being the mother of his divinity as well. To call her the ‘Mother of God’ suggests just that.
Keep smiling. And a happy Valentine's Day.

 

[Contarini]

But, again, why do I have trouble with Mary as the "Mother of God’? Here’s my thinking in a capsule. Mary was the mother of the human Jesus, of course, but was she the mother of the divinity of Christ? That’s where I question the doctrine that was eventually formulated by the Councils, as the veneration of Mary increased. That divinity had no mother or father. It was from the beginning - and it ever shall be… So, to me can be grossly misleading to refer to Mary as the ‘Mother of God’. It was quite enough that she was honored to become the mother of the human Jesus without being the mother of his divinity as well. To call her the ‘Mother of God’ suggests just that.

It’s a statement about the Incarnation, Roy. It’s kind of basic to Christianity. God really became human. Reject that, and I don’t see the point in being a Christian at all.

Edwin

 

[The_Sentry]

It’s a statement about the Incarnation, Roy. It’s kind of basic to Christianity. God really became human. Reject that, and I don’t see the point in being a Christian at all.

Edwin

^this is very true!

 

[rturner76]

I believe if you treat your mother and /or women in general like you would treat the Virgin Mary, There would be no war.

 

[pablope]

It’s a statement about the Incarnation, Roy. It’s kind of basic to Christianity. God really became human. Reject that, and I don’t see the point in being a Christian at all.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin…

Maybe you could point me to the write document or correct me if I am wrong. I read (forget where) that the “Mother of God” was promulgated because of heresy, and the Christians at that time were failing ot see Jesus as both human and divine, or were seperating the two. The term was promulgated to help Christians see Jesus as both human and divine, fully congruent.

 

[elvisman]

Now, if Christians want to refer to Mary as the ‘Mother of God’ - fine. I don’t try to determine the content of the faith of other Christians, and I don’t think they should insist upon all the dimensions and elements of my faith, either. That’s why I am always harping on the importance of a ‘big tent’ Christianity, where there is freedom for those who would seek to follow Christ while having different interpretations. I, for one, don’t want a ‘stright=jacket’ religion, but one which permits intellectual freedom. Dismiss this as egotism or whatever you like, but I am not ready to turn my mind over to any church or preacher. As for the Bible, it obviously is unclear at many places. “Even the devil can quote scripture…” I certainly don’t believe that God committed some of those heinous atrocities attributed to him in the Old Testament. Now, do I believe that, for example, he was the author in any sense of such wild verses as Ex. 22:18, 20 - etc.

But, again, why do I have trouble with Mary as the "Mother of God’? Here’s my thinking in a capsule. Mary was the mother of the human Jesus, of course, but was she the mother of the divinity of Christ? That’s where I question the doctrine that was eventually formulated by the Councils, as the veneration of Mary increased. That divinity had no mother or father. It was from the beginning - and it ever shall be… So, to me can be grossly misleading to refer to Mary as the ‘Mother of God’. It was quite enough that she was honored to become the mother of the human Jesus without being the mother of his divinity as well. To call her the ‘Mother of God’ suggests just that.

Keep smiling. And a happy Valentine’s Day.

Roy - do you agree with or reject the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Christ?

 

[Roy5]

I presume that my point is that Christ had both the human and divine nature. My argument is that Mary was mother of his human nature, but she hardly could have produced his divine nature, unless she, too, were God. So, when she is referred to as the ‘Mother of God’ I wince a bit. It is quite enough - to me, obviously - that she was the mother of the human Christ.

The early Church, as we know, battled again and again over the nature of Christ. Did he have one nature or two? Were they joined or separate? Etc. Lots of ‘heresies’ sprung up, whether Arianism, Adoptianism, Monarchianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism (did I spell that one right?), etc. It happened that the majority at Chalcedon came up with the ‘right formula’. Those who believe that the Church cannot err in such areas will stick with that doctrine. Fine. I have no particular objection, though my personl attitude would be to let various views be aired (which is happening anyway among many Christians today).

The thread here deals with Mary. I have tried to explain in simple language why I don't refer to her as the 'Mother of God'. Much of it may be semantics. Christ combined the human and the divine. Mary was mother of the human. I honor her for that. She was not involved in the creation of the divinity of Christ, which came from God, not from Mary.

 Disagree? Fine. You're more traditional than I am. I refuse to say, however, that this makes you better Christians than those of us who come to other conclusions.

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin…

Maybe you could point me to the write document or correct me if I am wrong. I read (forget where) that the “Mother of God” was promulgated because of heresy, and the Christians at that time were failing ot see Jesus as both human and divine, or were seperating the two. The term was promulgated to help Christians see Jesus as both human and divine, fully congruent.

It’s the Council of Ephesus in 431. You can read some of the texts here.

Everyone agreed that Jesus was both human and divine–the question was how to express it properly. (That’s where I wasn’t entirely fair to Roy above–but I accept the position of the Council of Ephesus that denying the title “Theotokos” implies a defective understanding of the unity of Jesus’ humanity and divinity.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I presume that my point is that Christ had both the human and divine nature. My argument is that Mary was mother of his human nature, but she hardly could have produced his divine nature, unless she, too, were God.

Indeed. But the question is: does it any sense to say that she was mother of a nature? No, she’s the mother of a person, or in technical terms a “hypostasis.” And the hypostasis is the Second Person of the Trinity. Hence, she is Mother of God.

So, when she is referred to as the ‘Mother of God’ I wince a bit. It is quite enough - to me, obviously - that she was the mother of the human Christ.

Well, that’s what Nestorius said.

The thread here deals with Mary. I have tried to explain in simple language why I don't refer to her as the 'Mother of God'. Much of it may be semantics. Christ combined the human and the divine. Mary was mother of the human. I honor her for that. She was not involved in the creation of the divinity of Christ, which came from God, not from Mary.

But when you put it in those terms, you aren’t describing the issue accurately, because no one says that Mary created Christ’s divinity. At least understand what the orthodox position is before you pass judgment on it! The point is, again, about the unity of Jesus’ personhood. Mary didn’t give birth to a nature, but to a person. If you disagree, that’s what you are disagreeing with.

Disagree? Fine. You’re more traditional than I am. I refuse to say, however, that this makes you better Christians than those of us who come to other conclusions.

I think I’m a more orthodox Christian, at least on this point. But of course that doesn’t make me a better or holier person than you are.

What concerns me most about your post is that you are simply repeating the “opening gambit” of the Nestorian controversy as if none of the hard theological work had been done. But it has been done. You can disagree and I can respect that (there are several hundred thousand Christians of Middle Eastern origin who have disagreed for 1600 years, and have often suffered for doing so), but simply ignoring/dismissing the entire controversy and speaking as if you had just discovered Nestorianism for yourself doesn’t seem like a responsible or respectful way to treat the Christian tradition.

Edwin

 

[Dokimas]

Roy - do you agree with or reject the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Christ?

I don’t speak for anyone but me: agree with.

That’s why I see Mary in a surrogate and adoptive role.

 

[pablope]

I don’t speak for anyone but me: agree with.

That’s why I see Mary in a surrogate and adoptive role.

What do you mean by “surrogate and adoptive role”?