Catholic Belief understanding about Mary

[Bithynian]

I just want to know why the council choose the title “my Lord’s mother” inspired in scriptures by the holyspirit before Mary through Elizabeth, when they met.

Based on your previous posts, I assume you meant “why didn’t the council choose the title “my Lord’s mother””.

A few points:

(1) The title θεοτόκος had been in usage amongst Constantinopolitan (and other) Christians for several decades (if not more than a century) at the time the Council of Ephesus was convened. The Council did not coin the term, nor did it coin χριστόκος, which had been suggested earlier by Nestorius.

(2) I speculate that “My Lord’s Mother” in Greek would be κυριοτόκος (kyriotokos). This was not suggested because ultimately it was not relevant to and did not resolve the theological dispute at hand. No theological school at the Council denied that Mary was kyriotokos. Its mandate by Emperor Theophilus was to determine which of the two prevailing terms - θεοτόκος or χριστόκος - and their associated theologians was more orthodox.

(3) The basic issue at hand was the relationship between the two natures of Christ, the human and divine. More specifically, it concerned issues of eucharistic theology (strongly argued by Cyril) and soteriology.

(4) It’s useful to note that θεοτόκος being “non-Scriptural” (that is, the term not being present in the Scriptures) was one of the issues debated at Ephesus. And it’s essentially cropped up for different terms at nearly every Ecumenical Council: opponents of Athanasius said that the term ὁμοούσιος was non-Scriptural and therefore should not be added to the Creed at the Council of Nicaea. As both Athanasius and Cyril succeeded at their respective councils, it’s important to note that the mere lack of mention of a term did not render it unorthodox in the eyes of the Church Fathers. What was more pertinent was a term’s theological cogency within the broader framework of orthodox belief.

 

[Bithynian]

My biggest pet peeve question is, “Why did they choose Ephesus of all places to have a council on Mary being pronounced Theotokos out of all the cities in the Roman world, especially in light of Ephesus having been the epicenter of Artemis/DIana worship for centuries, if there is to be no symbolic connection between the two?”

I attempt to give all literature the benefit of the doubt, but that article is - in polite terms - a load of bunk. Nearly every major ancient Greek and Roman city was to some extent or another associated with a temple of note or a local oracle. Chalcedon hosted an Ecumenical Council in a temple of Venus which had been converted to a Church consecrated under St Euphemia. Likewise the city was also - in the distant past - the site of an oracle of Apollo.

I have read of no thoughtful and scholarly literature discussing the Ecumenical Councils that even comments on where they held and/or why they were held in a given location. It’s essentially a non-issue that does not affect any scholar’s theological, historical and/or political commentary.

But if we are allowed a little speculation: Ephesus was likely chosen because it was the second major city of the Eastern Roman Empire (after Constantinople) and it was a coastal city, thereby facilitating speedier travel for bishops located across the mediterranean. Constantinople was likely not chosen because Nestorius was its bishop at the time.

 

[po18guy]

but the term used or defined by the council need more specificity.

Why single out the Catholic Church? Have you questioned the Eastern Orthodox? The Oriental Orthodox? The Syriac Church of the East? Many other ancient Eastern branches of Christianity? “Theotokos” was believed at least as early as the the 200s for goodness’ sake! Scripture is clear. Read Luke 1.

What the term Theotokos needs in this case is greater understanding. Unless you are formulating a new religion. I would hope that is not the case.

Q: What if the Holy Spirit lead the council to all of this? And, He certainly did.

Q: Are you therefore debating the Holy Spirit?

Q: Why not pray for understanding of that which has been revealed to mankind?

 

[Gokul]

It is more reasonable to look the scriptures at its Ancient format, in the case of New Testament it is written in Koine Greek, it is also reasonable to look scriptures of the New Testament which is written in Latin or Coptic manuscripts in light of Greek manuscripts.

Latin version of the bible which the church uses during its official declaration time is one of the complete version of the bible at that time existed. Today archaeologists have been discovering more are more manuscripts, who knows how many copies are left and not found.

It is an ideal way, to create the original writings of New Testament by using the method called Textual Criticism with the available information of the manuscripts, in Greek, including Greek manuscripts, Latin manuscripts, Coptic manuscripts and also available quotations.
Therefore the one bible which has been created has a very high accuracy rate, when compare to individual sources.
This is the bible I’m using.

The scripture that you quote “Mother of the Lord” is not biblical, it is not in the Greek manuscripts, rather the correct quote is this,

And whence [is] this to me,
that the mother of my Lord
should come to me?

the mother of my Lord] The words shew a remarkable degree of divine illumination in the mind of Elizabeth. See [John 20:28] [John 13:13]. Yet she does not address Mary as Domina, but as ‘mater Domini’ (Bengel); and such expressions as Theotokos and ‘Mother of God’ are unknown to Scripture.

 

[Bithynian]

The scripture that you quote “Mother of the Lord” is not biblical, it is not in the Greek manuscripts, rather the correct quote is this,

The Vulgate translation offered by @Fauken is as biblical as the translation you offered.

The Greek is: καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρὸς ἐμέ.

Mater domini mei = ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου = the mother of my lord

The Latin and English translations are both very literal, capturing the essential semantics of the Greek, and I know of no philological reason as to why it should be translated in any other way in either Latin or English.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

However I don’t see what the Immaculate Conception or Assumption add to our umderstanding of Christ.

The theology of the Immaculate Conception was deeply explored by St. Maximilian Kolbe, and probably best explained for the layman in “33 Days to Morning Glory”. I’ll leave it to you whether you want to read it or not, but the Immaculate Conception goes WAY beyond just being some grace given to Mary.

As for the Assumption, I see that as a confirmation of Jesus/ God restoring us to our physical bodies after the Last Judgment. We seek to emulate what Mary has already accomplished. I suspect there are other deep meanings to it as well that I haven’t had time yet to ponder or explore. I look forward to learning more about it.

I think rather than dismissing dogmas as “Not necessary” one should seek a deeper understanding of them. The Church doesn’t just declare dogmas for the heck of it.

 

[poche]

4 The Word became flesh, he lived among us, and we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[poche]

The above comes from John1:14

 

[Gokul]

The Lord and my Lord referring in Pslams 110.1 are meaningful noun of two separate persons , ABBA and the Son of man actually the son of man is a divine person in Old Testament,

On seeing Mary the Spirit has proclaimed the truth of who she actually is, through Elizabeth also the Spirit has revealed the happening and confirmation of this pslam.

The point is calling Mary, Mother of my Lord is scriptural than Theotokos (non scriptural), mother of The Lord is a blasphemy and also (non scriptural) cause ABBA is timeless.

Nostorians will not defend the title “mother of my Lord” for it is scriptural.

 

[Bithynian]

mother of The Lord is a blasphemy and also (non scriptural) cause ABBA is timeless.

There has been no major school of Christian theology - whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, evangelical, non-denominational Protestantism - since 431 AD that considers θεοτόκος to be a “blasphemy”.

The overwhelming consensus of Christian theologians today across the vast majority of churches and denominations is, as it was in Ephesus over 1,500 years ago, that θεοτόκος is integral to a biblical and orthodox soteriology.

In any case, whether the word θεοτόκος is explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures is fundamentally irrelevant. This was debated by the Church Fathers at Ephesus, and I mentioned this in an earlier post of mine in this very thread. But to summarise the main point: most key theological terminology are not contained in the Bible. The Trinity and consubstantiality (ὀμοουσία homoousia) are two significant examples.

The more important issue is whether a particular theological doctrine represented by a term is consistent within and cogent with other theology. As the dispute on θεοτόκος and χριστόκος touched on key doctrines of Christology, soteriology and eucharistic theology, it was determined by the Church Fathers that θεοτόκος was more consistent and even fundamental to a faithful understanding of those theological disciplines.

 

[Michael16]

I think what the problem Gokul is facing here is what can often happen with Christians within and without the Church. Getting real nit picky about exact wording in Scripture.

Now really what has to happen here is that we look at the context of Scripture.

Saint Elizabeth says: The mother of my Lord. We know that the Holy Spirit inspired her to speak those words. In Jewish theology, God was Lord. So, what Saint Elizabeth is saying here is: The mother of my Lord.

If Jesus isn’t God, what Saint Elizabeth is saying doesn’t make sense. She’d be transferring her Lord from God to Jesus.

Thus, Theotokos; though not exactly what Scripture says, does line up with Scripture.

Mary, Mother of Jesus; is mother of God. This: Theotokos is appropriate.

 

[Hodos]

Because when Christ was conceived he was no longer just the Logos, but the Logos who had put on flesh. It would be almost a gnostic understanding of Christ to divorce his pre-existent nature as the second person of the Trinity from his assumption of humanity in his incarnation.

 

[Fauken]

It is an ideal way, to create the original writings of New Testament by using the method called Textual Criticism with the available information of the manuscripts, in Greek, including Greek manuscripts, Latin manuscripts, Coptic manuscripts and also available quotations.

Something I’m sure St. Jerome eschewed in his translation of the Vulgate. There are books available that he had that we still don’t have. Why do you assume he didn’t have those texts available? As @Bithynian showed, it’s on point with the Greek, because the Latin Vulgate was translated from the Greek Septuagint and the same Greek of the New Testament.

Therefore the one bible which has been created has a very high accuracy rate, when compare to individual sources.
This is the bible I’m using.

When the Wikipedia article for your translation says that it was written in simple language for children and ease of understanding was the goal, you’ll excuse me if I have a hard time believing your translation is the most accurate.

Good News Bible - Wikipedia

Precision is often sacrificed for ease of understanding. And considering that most other translations use “Mother of the Lord”, I’m inclined to believe that yours took liberties with that line for ease of understanding.

Yet she does not address Mary as Domina, but as ‘mater Domini’

Because that’s how Latin grammar works. “Domine/Domina” is a noun. “Domini” is possessive, “[of] the Lord”. Mary is not being addressed as “Lord”, Jesus is. She is the “Mother of the Lord”, not “Mother of the Lady”. You can see the same thing in Mary’a fiat in Luke:

“1:38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
1:38 Dixit autem Maria : Ecce ancilla Domini : fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Et discessit ab illa angelus.”