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

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
I was going to ask that, too. At least in modern speak, neither term applies.

Jon
Click to expand...
I think we have managed to unearth examples of both unorthodox Christological extremes on this thread!

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
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
Click to expand...
maybe

But while I was a Christian I did not understand all the fuss over Mary. And I (and my church) sure did not believe that Joseph never had sex with his wife Mary. I just don’t see how such views (divine vessel of Mary, chaste Mary) have anything to do with the message and salvation of Christ. They seem, preeminently, the obsessive parsings of the human mind.
 
pablope said:
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.

Do you see anything wrong with that?
Click to expand...
The bible strctly forbides consulting with the dead.

Deut.18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

A necromancer and a consulter with familiar spirits are pretty much the same. The are consulters with the dead for any purpose.
 
larkin31 said:
maybe

But while I was a Christian I did not understand all the fuss over Mary. And I (and my church) sure did not believe that Joseph never had sex with his wife Mary. I just don’t see how such views (divine vessel of Mary, chaste Mary) have anything to do with the message and salvation of Christ. They seem, preeminently, the obsessive parsings of the human mind.
Click to expand...
Those obsessive parsings certainly affected many souls and mankind by large. Perhaps its just the denial in the mind of some, that inhibits the abilty to find this Grace of God?

Among all the devotions approved by the Church none has been so favored by so many Miracles as the devotion to Most Holy Rosary. Pope Pius IX

We do not hesitate to affirm again publicly that we put great confidence in the Holy Rosary for the healing of evils in out time. Pope Pius XII

The Rosary is the weapon which will defeat evil. Pope Leo XIII

No-one can continually live in sin and continue to say the Rosary: either they will give up sin or they will give up the Rosary. Bishop Hugh Doyle

My impression is the Rosary is of greatest value not only according to the words of Our Lady of Fatima, but according to the effects one sees of the Rosary throughout history.

Say the Rosary every day to obtain world peace. Our Lady of Fatima

The Rosary is a priceless treasure inspired by God. St Louis de Montfort
 
Roy5 said:
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).
Click to expand...
**WHY do you agree with the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union and reject the Doctrine of Theotokos that was declared by the SAME Church (Catholic) at the SAME Council (Ephesus, 431). Mary didn’t give birth to a nature. NO mother does. She gave birth to the 2nd person in the Trinity - Jesus (God). Your rejection of this is heresy, plain and simple.
Roy5 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.

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.
Click to expand...
**Those who reject the fact that Jesus’ 2 natures are indivisible are heretics. Don’t believe me - even Protestant theologians like R.C. Sproul agree with me. It’s a very OLD heresy and it wasn’t invented by you. Unfortunately, because of spiritual pride - many have fallen victim to it . . .
 
larkin31 said:
maybe

But while I was a Christian I did not understand all the fuss over Mary. And I (and my church) sure did not believe that Joseph never had sex with his wife Mary. I just don’t see how such views (divine vessel of Mary, chaste Mary) have anything to do with the message and salvation of Christ. They seem, preeminently, the obsessive parsings of the human mind.
Click to expand...
You sound a bit like the tourist who claimed to be a resident - you tasted what you thought was the culture, but never actually experienced the true depth of it.

BTW, why does an apostate subscribe to a christian / catholic forum? If you’re looking for a way back, that’s cool. But do yourself the credit of going to a church that doesn’t dismiss those persons central to the revelation of Christ.
 
pablope said:
What do you mean by “surrogate and adoptive role”?
Click to expand...
Just as the terms suggest. No hidden meaning.

Mary did not create God for God was never created as you are well aware. In that sense, as biological mothers and fathers create the ovum and sperm which ‘creates’ the new baby, Mary, IMO, is not the mother of God.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
The bible strctly forbides consulting with the dead.

Deut.18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

A necromancer and a consulter with familiar spirits are pretty much the same. The are consulters with the dead for any purpose.
Click to expand...
We don’t pray to the dead:
Mark 12:27
**"He is not God of the dead but of the living."
 
Dokimas said:
Just as the terms suggest. No hidden meaning.

Mary did not create God for God was never created as you are well aware. In that sense, as biological mothers and fathers create the ovum and sperm which ‘creates’ the new baby, Mary, IMO, is not the mother of God.
Click to expand...
Then you speak heresy because Jesus’ 2 natures are indivisible - are they not?
I have never met a mother OR a father who created their offspring. GOD creates all. No mother gives brth to a nature, but to a PERSON - just as Mary did.
The only difference is that she gave birth 2 the 2nd person in the Trinity - GOD.
**Can you deny that?
 
elvisman said:
Then you speak heresy because Jesus’ 2 natures are indivisible - are they not?
**I have never **met a mother OR a father who created their offspring. GOD creates all. No mother gives brth to a nature, but to a PERSON - just as Mary did.
The only difference is that she gave birth 2 the 2nd person in the Trinity - GOD.
**Can you *deny ***that?
Click to expand...
Then all mothers are surrogates. Okay, I can live with that. Except for one thing: God did not create God. Jesus always existed. He did not have His beginning in Mary’s womb.

Heresy: that’s quite an accusation. You tend to throw around accusations. Not cool, but no offense taken. 🙂
 
elvisman said:
Then you speak heresy because Jesus’ 2 natures are indivisible - are they not?
**I have never **met a mother OR a father who created their offspring. GOD creates all. No mother gives brth to a nature, but to a PERSON - just as Mary did.
The only difference is that she gave birth 2 the 2nd person in the Trinity - GOD.
**Can you *deny ***that?
Click to expand...
God is the creator of all, I can agree with that statement. 👍

If Mary gave birth to the second person in the Trinity as you stated, then she also gave birth to the 3 parson in the Trinity as well, The Holy Spirit. So in fact she gave birth to the Trinity, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit seeing they are the same person. You can’t give birth to one without giving birth to the other 2.

Now I have to agree with Dokimas on this: God did not create God. Jesus always existed. He did not have His beginning in Mary’s womb. Can you explain this?
 
philial said:
You sound a bit like the tourist who claimed to be a resident - you tasted what you thought was the culture, but never actually experienced the true depth of it.

BTW, why does an apostate subscribe to a christian / catholic forum? If you’re looking for a way back, that’s cool. But do yourself the credit of going to a church that doesn’t dismiss those persons central to the revelation of Christ.
Click to expand...
Why does anyone post here? 🤷

I did not say that Mary was dismissed. You should be more careful in your summary.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
The bible strctly forbides consulting with the dead.

Deut.18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

A necromancer and a consulter with familiar spirits are pretty much the same. The are consulters with the dead for any purpose.
Click to expand...
Mary, and the saints, are very much alive in heaven, Richard, not dead. And it is very Biblical. They are not in soul sleep, as you believe. Is “soul sleep” in the Bible? Wait, i just saw a thread on it, so I will pose the question there, I do not want to derail this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top