I don't understand the problem with the title "Mary, Mother of God"

[Marybeloved]

I’ve just thought of another reason why some protestants have a problem with the title. It’s not the Nestorian heresy (where they divide Christ into two persons, a human and divine person, instead of only the natures being two). I’ve encountered it in debates about Mary’s sinlessness. This one is the surrogacy mother-hood belief.

Some Protestants (I think fundamentalists) believe that Mary did NOT give her flesh to Christ. They believe that she was only a surrogate mother who only carried a baby that wasn’t really hers- . This of course has its own set of problems, as with the Nestorian heresy, since it basically makes Our Lord an alien, not a true man or a descendant of Adam. The enormous implications to our faith are clear: Our whole faith becomes a farce since, in fact, God did NOT become MAN

 

[JustaServant]

My point is the whole line of thought of saying

Jesus is God
Mary is Mother is Jesus,
therefore Mary is the mother of God

That whole thought is flawed. We shouldn’t use that as logic at all.

The fact is the Bible says Jesus is God. (Book of John, other books)
Bible says Mary is the mother of Jesus

And using fancy deduction logic gets you in trouble.

I do not need to confirm Mary is the mother of God to confirm Jesus is God.

The Word of God tells me this already. I just believe God’s Word.

Jesus is also called The Word. Does that mean Jesus is the Bible?

 

[JustaServant]

By your Maths degree logic, then,

Jesus = God;
and (per your logic) God=the Father, =The Holy Spirit,
Therefore, Jesus=The Father=The Holy Spirit,
Therefore, :newidea:Jesus is the Trinity!!!

Should this “confusion” be avoided by NOT calling Jesus God, then?

You seem to miss the whole point that the God in “Mother of God” is Jesus. Any hits you make on that title are ultimately hits against calling Jesus, God. If we can’t say that Mary is the Mother of God, then we can’t say that Jesus is God.

You hit a homerun with that Mary.

 

[crazzeto]

I completely get that, but it confuses a lot of people.

I once used that title for her and someone thought that I believed that before God there was Mary…because if God has a mother then the mother must have come before him. The Bible tells us that God has always existed which means he has no mother and no father. By saying she is the mother of God it can lead to confusion and make people think that 1. She has also always existed along, or 2. She has existed before God.

I usually just use the term Mary mother of Jesus or Jesus’ earthly mother.

Your solution is conversationally easier, however when it comes to something like this I think it is better to be accurate than to accept the conversationally easy solution. God ordained that Mary would be Theotokos (Mother of God) for good reason, it’s all part of the economy of salvation. The more we know about this the better.

Mary’s role as Theotokos has been particularly successful at converting pegans, this was particluarly true of the Aztec.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’ve just thought of another reason why some protestants have a problem with the title. It’s not the Nestorian heresy (where they divide Christ into two persons, a human and divine person, instead of only the natures being two). I’ve encountered it in debates about Mary’s sinlessness. This one is the surrogacy mother-hood belief.

Some Protestants (I think fundamentalists) believe that Mary did NOT give her flesh to Christ. They believe that she was only a surrogate mother who only carried a baby that wasn’t really hers- . This of course has its own set of problems, as with the Nestorian heresy, since it basically makes Our Lord an alien, not a true man or a descendant of Adam. The enormous implications to our faith are clear: Our whole faith becomes a farce since, in fact, God did NOT become MAN

Marybeloved----

That’s a truly strange belief. It would make the title “Son of David” false, and the Gospel geneaologies pointless.

My guess would be that, in running into that idea in conversation with some Protestants, either they are just making up stuff in the midst of an argument though they haven’t actually been taught that, or they belong to a fringe group. It certainly isn’t mainstream Protestant teaching, and isn’t permissable even for those Protestants who have the most narrowly-defined view of the meaning of sola scriptura.

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved----

That’s a truly strange belief. It would make the title “Son of David” false, and the Gospel geneaologies pointless.

My guess would be that, in running into that idea in conversation with some Protestants, either they are just making up stuff in the midst of an argument though they haven’t actually been taught that, or they belong to a fringe group. It certainly isn’t mainstream Protestant teaching, and isn’t permissable even for those Protestants who have the most narrowly-defined view of the meaning of sola scriptura.

You’re absolutely right! I thought the same as soon as I encountered it (right here at CAF, by the way). I made the same point you’re making to the proponents of this bizzare belief. That if Christ was NOT Mary’s biological son, then he was not David’s son, nor even “the Son of man” as Christ often called himself in scripture, or the 2nd Adam. :shrug:This makes Our Lord himself (God) a trickster! Going through a lot of trouble to stage all these things just to make it look like he was a bonafide member of the Human species when in fact, he was not even biologically related to ANY single member of that species!! Like I said- An alien that looks and talks like us but is not one of us; A type of superman/Clark-Kent being.

That’'s why I said that I think those people are fundamentalists. But perhaps you’re right. Perhaps some people just say things in a debate to score points on the spur of the moment, and those points may not really be representative of the beliefs of their church (or maybe even that person!).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Faith is faith. I believe Jesus is the Eternal Son of God. I believe Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity. I believe Jesus is a unique Person but Part of the one Godhead…

Gottcha and really not a problem. However the truth has to be passed to prevent heresy.

Jesus did not exist till Mary bore the Child named Jesus [Gabriel states, and you will call Him Jesus] who was the Son of God that became fully Divine/Human through Mary. So the Son of God “the Word that became Flesh” and dwelt among us, came through Mary by Gods Will… Hail Mary, you have found favor with GOD, Blessed are you among women…Luke-etc etc.

Whats not mentioned in your paragraph is that the Son of God existed before Jesus/Mary. Thus the title given to Mary becomes significant due to the inseperable Human/Divine Natures that Mary brings to the equation by Gods Will. Mary thus became Gods plan for Himself/mankind, and a plan which we see in scripture Lucifer wasn’t to keen on. So Gods plan is completed through Marys fiat, “Thy Will be Done, and it was” then war breaks out in Heaven with Michael, and Lucifer and cohorts are ousted. Thus through the entire History of mankind after the fall, one Woman was chosen by God. And She became the Mother of God.

So then the contemplation becomes, how should we as Christians view and treat The Mother of God in Gods KIngdom?

I don’t see how “A title” given to Mary secures those facts, or how lack of using a title, denies it. This is just analysis paralysis.

Mary does secure this fact, and its taught because so many would chose to deny the truth, which through History creates heresy, as we have already witnessed. So whats “secured” is the Truth of Jesus Christ thus fully human/divine. Thats the Truth, that Theotokos and Mother of God preserve.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us secures the reality of the title. The “title” is a mere scratch of the surface of the existing reality that St. Mary, Mother of the Lord/Theotokos plays in mankinds History, which is a Truth in the Kingdom of God. What is mankinds history but the battle of good and evil.

The question isn’t so much, “Well I believe in the Trinity and lay my life at the Cross”. In truth we all do this as Christians “I hope”. However theirs a deeper contemplation of Mary in this sequence which is a reality. The ECFs contemplated this because of existing heresy.

However the point isn’t to raise Christians to Catholic belief. The point of the exercise is to understand the truth about Mary through the History of the Apostolic Tradition. So then Christians are correctly understanding where each other is coming from, and why. And history is preserved and passed on through time. As we see the heresy always returns. More so today that any other period in Christian History.

When the tradition has lapsed not remembered, forgotten. Then as we also see not only heresy creeps in, but even Christianity becomes at odds with itself.

So the 7th ecumenical council becomes imperative. Otherwise we have slander, and all kinds of chaos by Christians who in truth simply were not taught but the basics. Then turn around and place a division in Christianity, by incorrectly claiming, idol worship, Goddess and other such folly.

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here are some interesting prophecies that become fulfilled in the incarnation through Mary and the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her in order to conceive Jesus in her womb. Validating he motherhood legallly by a covenant of Love, Mercy stemming from “full of Grace” to the divine child.

** Isaiah 54: 5 For he who has become your husband is your Maker; his name is the LORD of hosts; Your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, called God of all the earth.

Isaiah 62: 5 As a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.

Hosea 2: 21 I will espouse you to me forever: I will espouse you in right and in justice, in love and in mercy; 22 I will espouse you in fidelity, and you shall know the LORD**.

The blessed Virgin is not just Mother of God incarnate, Jesus gives His Mother to us, who become the rest of her offspring…

Revelation 12:1* A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod…*

13 When **the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent,…
17Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother* and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”n 27** Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” **

 

[Anna_Scott]

Gottcha and really not a problem. However the truth has to be passed to prevent heresy.

Jesus did not exist till Mary bore the Child named Jesus [Gabriel states, and you will call Him Jesus] who was the Son of God that became fully Divine/Human through Mary. So the Son of God “the Word that became Flesh” and dwelt among us, came through Mary by Gods Will… Hail Mary, you have found favor with GOD, Blessed are you among women…Luke-etc etc.

Whats not mentioned in your paragraph is that the Son of God existed before Jesus/Mary. Thus the title given to Mary becomes significant due to the inseperable Human/Divine Natures that Mary brings to the equation by Gods Will. Mary thus became Gods plan for Himself/mankind, and a plan which we see in scripture Lucifer wasn’t to keen on. So Gods plan is completed through Marys fiat, “Thy Will be Done, and it was” then war breaks out in Heaven with Michael, and Lucifer and cohorts are ousted. Thus through the entire History of mankind after the fall, one Woman was chosen by God. And She became the Mother of God.

So then the contemplation becomes, how should we as Christians view and treat The Mother of God in Gods KIngdom?

Mary does secure this fact, and its taught because so many would chose to deny the truth, which through History creates heresy, as we have already witnessed. So whats “secured” is the Truth of Jesus Christ thus fully human/divine. Thats the Truth, that Theotokos and Mother of God preserve.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us secures the reality of the title. The “title” is a mere scratch of the surface of the existing reality that St. Mary, Mother of the Lord/Theotokos plays in mankinds History, which is a Truth in the Kingdom of God. What is mankinds history but the battle of good and evil.

The question isn’t so much, “Well I believe in the Trinity and lay my life at the Cross”. In truth we all do this as Christians “I hope”. However theirs a deeper contemplation of Mary in this sequence which is a reality. The ECFs contemplated this because of existing heresy.

However the point isn’t to raise Christians to Catholic belief. The point of the exercise is to understand the truth about Mary through the History of the Apostolic Tradition. So then Christians are correctly understanding where each other is coming from, and why. And history is preserved and passed on through time. As we see the heresy always returns. More so today that any other period in Christian History.

When the tradition has lapsed not remembered, forgotten. Then as we also see not only heresy creeps in, but even Christianity becomes at odds with itself.

So the 7th ecumenical council becomes imperative. Otherwise we have slander, and all kinds of chaos by Christians who in truth simply were not taught but the basics. Then turn around and place a division in Christianity, by incorrectly claiming, idol worship, Goddess and other such folly.

Peace

Gary,
Great post. I’m pondering your words. . . .

Happy New Year, old friend,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Jesus is God and God is the Trinity. St. Mary is not the mother of the Trinity. She is the mother of God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus is God/man.

Jesus is the Son.

The Trinity is Father-Son-Holy Spirit.

Mary is the mother of the Son. The Son is God.

He who sees me sees the Father. The fullness of God dwells in the Son.

Mary is the mother of the Son, the God/man. Mary is the mother of the God/man.

You really do not like that Jesus became man in all ways including having a mother. Do you have issues with mothers?

By the way you haven’t gotten back to me on who had the monopoly on truth and where the truth can be found. Please don’t keep me waiting.

 

[CopticChristian]

Marybeloved----

That’s a truly strange belief. It would make the title “Son of David” false, and the Gospel geneaologies pointless.

My guess would be that, in running into that idea in conversation with some Protestants, either they are just making up stuff in the midst of an argument though they haven’t actually been taught that, or they belong to a fringe group. It certainly isn’t **mainstream Protestant **teaching, and isn’t permissable even for those Protestants who have the most **narrowly-defined view **of the meaning of sola scriptura.

Wow. I could not imagine such a quagmire of understanding what it is to know what to know to be Protestant. Thank God for the OHCAC where all the beliefs are defined. You don’t have to like them you have to love them. This cognitave dissonance would cause me to have insomnia.

 

[CopticChristian]

My point is the whole line of thought of saying

Jesus is God
Mary is Mother is Jesus,
therefore Mary is the mother of God

That whole thought is flawed. We shouldn’t use that as logic at all.

The fact is the Bible says Jesus is God. (Book of John, other books)
Bible says Mary is the mother of Jesus

And using fancy deduction logic gets you in trouble.

I do not need to confirm Mary is the mother of God to confirm Jesus is God.

The Word of God tells me this already. I just believe God’s Word.

How do you know that you are truly reading God’s Word? Where does the Bible say that every book is God’s word. Confirm for me that you have surety that you have God’s word after reading the following thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609262

Then consider that your proposition left the door open for Nestorius…and that is why the formula Theotokos was formulated so that never could anyone say that Jesus was not God/man…are you a Nestorian?

 

[CopticChristian]

Hi Cat—

I read the link you provided. While I don’t go along with everything Hanegraaff, the author, wrote, nevertheless I don’t see anything Nestorian about it. As Hesychios noted, the Nestorian controversy wasn’t about Mary, it was about the nature of Jesus, which Hanegraaff affirms in an **orthodox manner **in the article.

Define Orthodox for me so that I may understand what you mean. I believe Orthodox to be right thinking.

In confessing Mary to be “the mother of God,” we simply mean that it was within Mary’s womb that the eternal Son became united to a human nature and entered the world as theanthropos, the God-man. Mary was truly Jesus’ mother, but let’s make an important distinction here — she was Christ’s mother with respect to His humanity and not His deity.

Jesus was the God/man. No debate.

Mary in the womb bore the God/man. No debate.

The God/man came into the world through Mary’s birth canal so Mary gave birth to the God/man. Debate?

Mothering does not terminate with pregnancy. Jesus, the God/man could not take care of his toilet, his feeding or nurturing and He was mothered by Mary…John says this at the crucifixion…

26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Mary the mother of Jesus , God/man in the womb, at birth, in life and at death John says it was his mother…did she ever stop being His mother?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Happy New Year, old friend,
Anna

Anna, Happy New Year to you also.

Peace

 

[timwatt]

My priest does a great job of explaining why we call Mary the “Mother of God” in his homily about the biblical foundation of the Haily Mary:

youtube.com/watch?v=oY5sxV5Axxc&context=C3bb7fcfADOEgsToPDskLppXbc4SSloA0dKXeB2fil

 

[Cat]

Jesus is also called The Word. Does that mean Jesus is the Bible?

I don’t know of any Protestants who believe that Jesus is the Bible, but I know that there are Protestants who believe that the Bible is Jesus in a Book-form. That’s one reason why many Protestants believe that the Bible is our Sole Authority–because Jesus is our Sole Authority.

I hasten to say that most Protestants have studied the exegesis of the Greek word that we translate as “Word” in the 1st Chapter of John, and understand that this does not refer to the Bible, but to the “Logos,” which is Jesus. So please don’t think that all Protestants believe that the Bible is Jesus.

But I think a lot of Protestants, even those who understand the concept of “Logos,” still think that the Bible, because it is God speaking, is our Authority, and that we owe the Bible, not a Church of humans, absolute allegiance and obedience.

It is a major stumbling block for evangelical Christians considering Catholicism to understand that the Bible is not “over” or “superior to” the Church or Sacred Tradition, and many Protestants simply cannot make that jump and accept the Authority of the Catholic Church. They simply cannot place the Bible on an equal footing to the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. It “feels” so very wrong to them, after a lifetime of accepting the doctrine that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore, equal to God. It feels like idolatry to submit to a Church of humans.

One passage that really helps is Matthew 18: 15-17, where it is obvious that the Church is the Final Authority when there are disputes. This passage, straight out of the Bible and spoken by Jesus Himself, was very convincing to me and my husband.

Another helpful passage is Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem. At this time, there was no “New Testament,” and so it was the Church that made the major doctrinal decision about whether non-Jews needed to become Jewish first before becoming Christians. Again, this passage was extremely helpful to me and my husband. I had always wondered about it as Protestant, but I assumed (wrongly) that there many of the books of the New Testament were written at this point, and already accepted as Scriptural canon, and were referred to when the Church arrived at their decision concerning conversion of pagans. I didn’t know my church history.

I hope this post is helpful.

 

[JustaServant]

I don’t know of any Protestants who believe that Jesus is the Bible, but I know that there are Protestants who believe that the Bible is Jesus in a Book-form. That’s one reason why many Protestants believe that the Bible is our Sole Authority–because Jesus is our Sole Authority.

The post was an example of where the logic leads.

 

[stevekehl]

The problem is not whether the title is appropriate, the problem is when people insist the title must be used and believed in to be a Christian. No where in Scripture, not Jesus teaching, the letters of the apostles, not even in the Gospel of John (who took Mary in as his mother after the crucifixion) is Mary given this title. It was bestowed by a council of men, yes I know they cited Scripture for their “logical” progression of thought, therefor not a requirement of salvation. Personally, I believe Jesus shared no DNA with Mary. God could certainly have placed a fully human fetus in Mary’s womb and it wouldn’t be an alien. Believing that Jesus shared DNA with Mary could logically lead one to believe that God fertilized one of Mary’s ovum. Mormon’s believe this and teach that God had sex with Mary (emoticon throwing up). So if you want to call Mary the Mother of God, go ahead, If you think it’s wrong, that’s fine too. I think Mary would be sad to know she has become the subject of such contention between belivers.

 

[Marybeloved]

The problem is not whether the title is appropriate, the problem is when people insist the title must be used and believed in to be a Christian. No where in Scripture, not Jesus teaching, the letters of the apostles, not even in the Gospel of John (who took Mary in as his mother after the crucifixion) is Mary given this title. It was bestowed by a council of men, yes I know they cited Scripture for their “logical” progression of thought, therefor not a requirement of salvation. Personally, I believe Jesus shared no DNA with Mary. God could certainly have placed a fully human fetus in Mary’s womb and it wouldn’t be an alien. Believing that Jesus shared DNA with Mary could logically lead one to believe that God fertilized one of Mary’s ovum. Mormon’s believe this and teach that God had sex with Mary (emoticon throwing up). So if you want to call Mary the Mother of God, go ahead, If you think it’s wrong, that’s fine too. I think Mary would be sad to know she has become the subject of such contention between belivers.

What a ridiculous idea…God fertilized Mary! As if God has DNA or any biology to fertilize anybody.

Thanks for illustrating to Abidewithme that I wasn’t making up the whole surrogate mother-hood thing. Some (thankfully, few) Protestants really have the strangest ideas!

 

[AbideWithMe]

Wow. I could not imagine such a quagmire of understanding what it is to know what to know to be Protestant. Thank God for the OHCAC where all the beliefs are defined. You don’t have to like them you have to love them. This cognitave dissonance would cause me to have insomnia.

CopticChristian—

I don’t experience Christianity as a non-Catholic to be a quagmire. Some people need all beliefs defined, and some don’t. That’s quite often a matter of native personality differences. But, your comment and my response are not the topic of this thread.