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

[pablope]

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.

Did you read and understand post 58? Contarini’s response to the same position you are espousing, to Roy5 and how he is stating the Nestorian Heresy. I believe you are also close to doing the same, hence, Elvisman is exhorting you to reexamine.

 

[Dokimas]

Did you read and understand post 58? Contarini’s response to the same position you are espousing, to Roy5 and how he is stating the Nestorian Heresy. I believe you are also close to doing the same, hence, Elvisman is exhorting you to reexamine.

[SIGN]Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. [/SIGN]

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.

[SIGN]Quote:
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.[/SIGN]

Well, that’s what Nestorius said.

[SIGN]Quote:
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.[/SIGN]

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.

[SIGN]Quote:
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. [/SIGN]
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

I now have read it. Nestorianism was not really explain to the degree I understand what it says.

For the most part, I understand Roy and pretty much agree to what he said. I’m not sure if God used the DNA of one of Mary’s ovum or not. I don’t know how God became a Human, I just know that He did. Mary points us to the fact God inhabits His children. As Jesus said those that do His will are His mother, His brothers and His sisters.

 

[Dokimas]

From Wikipedia:

"Nestorius developed his Christological views as an attempt to rationally explain and understand the incarnation of the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. He had studied at the School of Antioch where his mentor had been Theodore of Mopsuestia; Theodore and other Antioch theologians had long taught a literalist interpretation of the Bible and stressed the distinctiveness of the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius took his Antiochian leanings with him when he was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II in 428.

Nestorius’ teachings became the root of controversy when he publicly challenged usage of the long-used title Theotokos (Mother of God) for the Virgin Mary. He suggested that the title denied Christ’s full humanity, arguing instead that Jesus had two loosely joined natures, the divine Logos and the human Jesus. As such he proposed Christotokos (Mother of Christ) as a more suitable title for Mary.

Nestorius’ opponents found his teaching too close to the heresy of adoptionism – the idea that Christ had been born a man who had later been “adopted” as God’s son. Nestorius was especially criticized by Cyril, Pope (Patriarch) of Alexandria, who argued that Nestorius’ teachings undermined the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures at the Incarnation. Nestorius himself always insisted that his views were orthodox, though they were deemed heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, leading to the Nestorian Schism, when churches supportive of Nestorius broke away from the rest of the Christian Church. A more elaborate Nestorian theology developed from there, which came to see Christ as having two loosely joined but distinct natures, or hypostases,[citation needed][dubious – discuss] the divine Logos and the human Christ. However, this formulation was never adopted by all churches termed “Nestorian”. Indeed, the modern Assyrian Church of the East, which reveres Nestorius, does not fully subscribe to Nestorian doctrine, though it does reject the title Theotokos.[2]"

Interesting, I definitely disagree with Nestorius’ idea that the Human and Divine natures of Jesus are loosely joined. IMO, they are NOT loosely joined, that’s why I find it hard to call Mary the name given in the OP.

 

[philial]

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?

Actually, Jesus didn’t always exist. The Logos did, who entered human history as created matter, gleamed from Mary’s own flesh and blood. Jesus, therefore, is a person of history, with a beginning. You could also say He had a pre-beginning as the Logos, but not as a human…

But it remains that Jesus is flesh of Her flesh, bone of Her bone, now glorius as the Christ, Lord of All Creation.

It would, therefore, be quite right to refer to the 3 harmonized existences of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity!

 

[elvisman]

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.

I never said, “Dokimas is a heretic”. I said that you speak heresey. That is not an empty accusation - it is a plain and simple fact. Whether you think it’s cool or not is irrelevant. Splitting Christ’s 2 indivisible natures is HERESY because it perverts the very nature of God.

*Secondly - nobody is saying that God created God or that Mary created Jesus. YOU are the one that said she created his human nature. Mary gave birth to God and through her body he created his human nature. Justa llike ALL parents, God creates through our bodies. He doesn’t HAVE to do it this way - he CHOSE *to do it this way. **

Mothers are not surrogates as you and others on this forum falsely claim. A surrogate is one that has somebody ELSE’s fertilized egg implanted in them.**

 

[JonNC]

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.

So, are you saying Mary was not the mother of Jesus?

Jon

 

[elvisman]

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?

YOU are now speak heresy friend - albeit a different heresy than Dokimas. His waas the heresy of Nestorianism. the heresy you are espousing is Sabellianism (Modalism) - that God is one person with 3 different modes. BOTH of these heresies were defeated 1700-1800 years ago.

**The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are NOT the same person. ****They are THREE distinct persons in ONE God.

Read my response to Doki about whether Jesus was created or not (Post #87).

 

[larkin31]

So, are you saying Mary was not the mother of Jesus?

Jon

She probably was, whoever she really was. There is not total certainty about this actual individual. But I tend to trust most of the information on her, and clearly Jesus (if we accept him as having truly existed, and I do) had a mother. (I am leaving out the issue of whether Jesus was divine. That is a different question for me).

 

[JonNC]

She probably was, whoever she really was. There is not total certainty about this actual individual. But I tend to trust most of the information on her, and clearly Jesus (if we accept him as having truly existed, and I do) had a mother. (I am leaving out the issue of whether Jesus was divine. That is a different question for me).

That’s perhaps true for you, but Dokimas is a Christian. The dangerous waters, in my view, of denying Theotokos is what of the Incarnation. In Mary’s womb, Jesus was fully God, fully man. Therefore, she truly was the God-bearer. This isn’t adoptive or surrogate. She is Jesus’ mother, and therefore the mother of God.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The other danger is that if one denies the Theotokos, one is going against the Universal Church’s declarations and recognition of her as such in the Early Church. It was a no-brainer to the ECF’s and councils. To depart from this basic truth is to head down a dark road IMO…

That’s perhaps true for you, but Dokimas is a Christian. The dangerous waters, in my view, of denying Theotokos is what of the Incarnation. In Mary’s womb, Jesus was fully God, fully man. Therefore, she truly was the God-bearer. This isn’t adoptive or surrogate. She is Jesus’ mother, and therefore the mother of God.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s perhaps true for you, but Dokimas is a Christian. The dangerous waters, in my view, of denying Theotokos is what of the Incarnation. In Mary’s womb, Jesus was fully God, fully man. Therefore, she truly was the God-bearer. This isn’t adoptive or surrogate. She is Jesus’ mother, and therefore the mother of God.

Jon

Amazing how far down the path of heretical thinking we are traveling in Christianity today.

 

[larkin31]

That’s perhaps true for you, but Dokimas is a Christian. The dangerous waters, in my view, of denying Theotokos is what of the Incarnation. In Mary’s womb, Jesus was fully God, fully man. Therefore, she truly was the God-bearer. This isn’t adoptive or surrogate. She is Jesus’ mother, and therefore the mother of God.

Jon

maybe

I hardly see how parsing this point matters in the Christian faith. But, you are free to care about this as you see fit!

 

[GaryTaylor]

maybe

I hardly see how parsing this point matters in the Christian faith. But, you are free to care about this as you see fit!

Well, at some point it becomes pure heresy. So then its not Christianity its your idea of religion.

 

[larkin31]

Well, at some point it becomes pure heresy. So then its not Christianity its your idea of religion.

About Mary? I just don’t see why people can’t disagree about Mary and still be good and true Christians.

 

[JonNC]

About Mary? I just don’t see why people can’t disagree about Mary and still be good and true Christians.

People can disagree about Mary. What Christians cannot disagree about is the nature of Christ - fully God and fully man. And that is the point of The Holy Theotokos. It isn’t about Mary, it is about Christ. Theotokos is truly Christ centered.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The other danger is that if one denies the Theotokos, one is going against the Universal Church’s declarations and recognition of her as such in the Early Church. It was a no-brainer to the ECF’s and councils. To depart from this basic truth is to head down a dark road IMO…

I agree. I just don’t see the need to disagree with this, if one looks at Theotokos as Christ-centered (which it is). Unless, of course, one’s conclusion about the Incarnation is at variance with all of Christianity.

Jon

 

[larkin31]

People can disagree about Mary. What Christians cannot disagree about is the nature of Christ - fully God and fully man…

Whatever that means.

None of this stuff ever meant anything to me as a believer. Jesus was clearly both divine and human. For most of the people I knew, that was 'nuff said. What mattered most was to practice what he preached.

But I respect your faith. I just don’t see the value in arguing over it much. But then again, I am not a believer and maybe it is worth fighting over.

 

[Bwtby]

Christ said on the Cross…Behold Your Son, Behold Your Mother!

Exactly. And coming from a man who spoke only in parables throughout his whole ministry, I think that statement has somewhat of a significance. Especially given the fact he is DYING and that’s one of the last things He says.

Roy5:

It wasn’t until 1864, for example, that Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception as an official doctrine.

Note: There is a whole different religion that began in the 600’s, that speaks about and emphasizes The Immaculate Conception of Mary. Soo, Pius IX defining The Immaculate Conception in 1864 is just kinda irrelevant huh?

 

[Dokimas]

**I never **said, “Dokimas is a heretic”. I said that you speak heresey. That is not an empty accusation - it is a plain and simple fact. Whether you think it’s cool or not is irrelevant. Splitting Christ’s 2 indivisible natures is HERESY because it perverts the very nature of God.

People that speak lies are liars, aren’t they?

Secondly - nobody YOU are the one that said she created his human nature.

Absolutely WRONG. I said that she is not the mother of God because she did NOT create Him. Thank you for setting your misunderstanding straight.

Mary gave birth

to God

… makes her more like a surrogate.

A surrogate is one that has somebody* ELSE’s*

fertilized egg implanted in them.

Exactly what I’m guessing.

 

[Okatana]

Originally Posted by Okatana in “When do Catholics go “to far” with Mary”
With all due respect to believers, there is, to me, a historic, philosophical, and spiritual reason for this emphasis on Mary that falls within the parameters of a religious model that most Christians, or christianists, tend to ignore or are ignorant of.

This proposal is based on the idea that religions have two major classifications that, as far as I can tell, most Christians seem to be unaware of. These classifications are “ascending” and “descending.” This idea is explicated in many critiques of religion as a phenomenon. Indeed they arise in Plato, Plotinus and others throughout history even to the present.

The ascending is roughly equatable to or associated with such terms as transcendent, eros, patristic, and agronomic, to name a few. Catholicism falls heavily at this end of the scale as a system, if you will, except for notable exceptions such as Aquinas, Avila, Eckhart, Francis, a few others, and arguably Jesus Himself. The collection of male oriented gods reflect this category.

The “descending” is roughly equatable with such ideas as immanence, Agape, extension, scientific, and the matriarchal. Mary, the Black Madonna, Isis, and Sumeramis, and the feminine Goddess is associated with this aspect of Divinity.

This ascending and descending largely explains the contention between Catholicism and Eastern religions and Catholicism and science as a matter of framing, since these categories taken as polarities are opposed and exist in a dualism of perception.

Given the natural propensity of the human to frame its perceptions in terms of the individual mind’s natural predilections, the only avenue for acknowledgment of the Feminine aspect of Divinity which is an integral part of manifestation within the Catholic Church is Mary. She is not thought of that way, because there is not that language readily available in that faith, but functionally speaking from a larger perspective, one which is more acknowledging of the actual Nature of God, it is inevitable that those sensitive to the Creative aspect of God would honor “Her” first. That is just as natural for them as it is for those with a patristic bent to first honor the Father or Jesus.