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

[CopticChristian]

As an evangelical Christian, I have no problem with some calling Mary ‘the mother of God’, for that is what she was when Jesus was in a physical body here on Earth, she was Jesus earthly mother. The same is true of Joseph, he was the father of Jesus while he lived on earth, and since Jesus is God, Joseph too can be called the father of God, for that is what he was when he and Jesus lived on earth.

I am certain that no catholic is calling Mary a goddess, nor Joseph a god. that would be absurd.

My mother and father were my father and mother only while I am alive on earth and they are alive. In fact, if my mother and father died right during my first year of life, and then I was adopted by by a married couple. They would be my mother and my father on this earth.

Just as a man is a husband to the one he married, and she is his wife, they remain husband and wife. But upon death they cease to be husband and wife. So it is for my mother and father, they were my temporal mother and father until death, then they cease being my parents.

Even foster parents may be called father and mother by their foster children, particularly if they were well raised and loved by them.

However, Jesus is Eternal and has an Eternal Father. God the Father and God the Son are Eternal and always existed, and God the Father created us and all things through His only begotten Son. They preceded all living beings, including Mary and Joseph, being their Creations.

So I would not make a big deal about Catholics calling Joseph and Mary Jesus father and mother while they and Jesus walked the earth, and likewise, my earthly father and mother ceased to be my mother and father upon their departures from the Earth, they ceased to be my parents.

We are spirits created by God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ, who was with Him in the beginning, and through Jesus we were created and all that is was created. We are not our bodies, our body is mere clothing. We are spirits that inhabit a physical body for a short time.

I am sure you are aware that

According to historical sources, the Ark of the Covenant was carried to Jerusalem when the city was declared to be the capital of the United Jewish Kingdom in the time of the Prophet David, after that of the Prophet Aaron. It was placed in the Temple built by the Prophet Solomon, where it remained until 587 BC. In that year Jerusalem was captured by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the monarch who constructed the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Later on, the belief began to spread that the Ark, which was not seen for the next 500 years by anyone, had not been destroyed but had been buried in a secret location under the Temple by the Levites responsible for its safekeeping. After the destruction of the Temple by the Roman Governor Titus in 70 AD, it was assumed that the secret chamber had been found and that the Ark and the other holy artifacts from the Temple had been carried to Rome. The Ark had remained lost since 587 BC.

You do understand that when the Messiah came, there was to be a temple and of course the Ark…and that the book of Revelation was written 65-90 AD. It was written at that time and of course the early Church, Jews knew that there was to be a Temple and to have the temple the Ark had to be present…You can imagine the early Jewish Christian hearing that the Ark was in heaven would ask…well what does it look like…read on…

Jesus said he would rebuild the temple and when the early Christians read Revelation and saw that the Ark was in heaven…the next description that follows is that of a vision of a woman with a child…

19And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

The Queen Mother, was the Ark…the Temple was not earthly but heavenly and the vision notes the woman…all first century Christians particularly the Jews would have made this translation of understanding knowing that they had been waiting for an earthly temple likened to the Davidic prototype…Jesus the Messiah was to rule in the heavenly kingdom and all that they anticipated was to be fulfilled however not as they knew it in the earthly realm…

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know what brand of evangelicalism you are from but I am intimately familiar with the Baptist and the Church of Christ brands, and they definitely consider this an heretical belief. I’m pretty sure the various pentecostal groups also call it heresy.

“Mary Mother of God” how so from scripture?

Lets consider Bible again. Today for example is the “Epiphany of the Lord” in the CC. Thus when we connect this to scripture, we read the Gospel of Matthew. chaper Two. There we see Mary called His [Jesus], Mother several times.

Certainly Jesus is God, as to the Trinity, certainly this is Biblical as the verse’s could be read as I just mentioned. Their also we see “His” [Gods] Mother Mary mentioned not once but several times, also in the previous chapter.

I mean it is in there right? So, why such an issue?

 

[rbarcia]

Right, yet when we start talking Catholic Doctrine which proceeds this we are already projecting past the point of Mother of God. I get that.

Yet She is the Mother of the Lord…biblically. She is Blessed - Virgin - Mother - Mary…Biblically.

Mother of God/Theotokos are very early doctrines.

Why then would we err on the lesser side and not the greater side? If in fact there is any error?

The Literal Translation of Theotokos is not Mother of God. It is something like God-bearer. Not really till the 3rd century we see this phrase being used.

Some of the other doctrines I listed though came later. Some much later. And were not taught in the early church.

 

[JustaServant]

The Literal Translation of Theotokos is not Mother of God. It is something like God-bearer. Not really till the 3rd century we see this phrase being used.

Some of the other doctrines I listed though came later. Some much later. And were not taught in the early church.

Irenaeus

The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 ***[A.D. 189]). ***

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Emmaberry,

I need to point something out to you. I don’t know where you got your information in this case.

Mary did not cease being Jesus’ Mother AKA Mother of God when she departed from the earth for two reasons:

(1) She did not die-she was assumed into heaven.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact she did die bodily, that is a fact.

After her death and burial she was resurrected. That is the full context of the belief that she was assumed into heaven, the knowledge that she had died and was buried.

She is among the First Fruits of the Coming Resurrection.

It is in this form that the belief came to western Christianity, somehow in more modern times some people are trying to say she did not die, but that is taking the ancient historical account and deliberately not reading the whole thing.



[sign]**Christ is Born!

Glorify Him!**[/sign]

 

[CopticChristian]

As an evangelical Christian, I have no problem with some calling Mary ‘the mother of God’, for that is what she was when Jesus was in a physical body here on Earth, she was Jesus earthly mother. The same is true of Joseph, he was the father of Jesus while he lived on earth, and since Jesus is God, Joseph too can be called the father of God, for that is what he was when he and Jesus lived on earth.

I was hoping no one would bring this up. Catholics do call and believe Mary is a Goddess…

I suppose since the cat is out of the bag, the truth must be told, I will be the one to speak of the Goddess and Mary Worship. OK…lets put it out there, Mary the Goddess and worship of Mary.

The ceremony of worship of Mary the Goddess is like this. There is a chair…and sometimes a throne. A linen cloth is placed over the chair and then the women offer up and sacrifice bread rolls…The bread is then partaken of all the worshipers. This is all done in the name of the ever-Virgin Mary.

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote of this in 375 AD. This apparently took place in the 4th century and he said “even though Mary is most beautiful and holy andvenerable, yet she is not to be worshiped"

The main source of information about them comes from their strongest opponent, Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about them in his Panarion of about 375 AD. According to Epiphanius. The Church condems Mary worship.

This thinking has resurfaced and has been condemned again.

alarmsindiscursions.blogspot.com/2007/09/collyridianism-encore.html

Collyridianism encore?

"Calling it a “very grave situation,” the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary…In her writings, Mme. Giguère described visions and messages she received from God, explaining that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is fully divine, and also that, as her modern incarnation, so is Mme. Giguère. Rather than the traditional Catholic Trinity - in which God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each fully divine and part of a three-part deity - the Army of Mary now speaks of a “quinternity,” including Mary and Mme.

So please tell anyone you know, Mary is not a goddess. No Christian in their right mind worships Mary. The OHCAC condemns Mary worship.

Yes there are heretics outside the Church and heretics in the Church…glad you brought it up.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Literal Translation of Theotokos is not Mother of God. It is something like God-bearer. Not really till the 3rd century we see this phrase being used.

Some of the other doctrines I listed though came later. Some much later. And were not taught in the early church.

The early Church… I am grateful for your recognition of “early” as opposed to the deranged Western Philosophical thinking of “ancient” that has crept into Western Protestant thought.

This is true. The early Church knew nothing of Calvin, Luther, Knox, Zwingli, Altar Calls, Baptists, Dispensational theology, Sinners prayer, salvation assured and much more. This is all true.

 

[emmaberry]

Hello Emmaberry,

I need to point something out to you. I don’t know where you got your information in this case.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact she did die bodily, that is a fact.

After her death and burial she was resurrected. That is the full context of the belief that she was assumed into heaven, the knowledge that she had died and was buried.

She is among the First Fruits of the Coming Resurrection.

It is in this form that the belief came to western Christianity, somehow in more modern times some people are trying to say she did not die, but that is taking the ancient historical account and deliberately not reading the whole thing.

Oops!! I should not have stated so definitively that Mary did NOT die-but the same can be said for the reverse. The Church is actually silent on the matter of whether Mary died a physical death. Church documents only stated that when she was assumed she had “completed her life.” See this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232146

Sorry for the error!

 

[Negative]

sorry if this is off-topic in this thread but it seems kinda relevent anyway, could someone please explain or link me a detail defination of what exactly “The Trinity” is, especially the holy spirit part - what exactly is that suppose to be? the articles i have read seem to make little sense to me and at most contradicting each other…i figure you guys might be equiped best with the relevent information on this topic - cheers!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Let me add this to the idol worship theory.

google.com/url?q=http://www.truecatholic.us/pope/honor.htm&sa=U&ei=LTEKT5-pKcfb0QGw4b3NAg&ved=0CCMQFjAD&sig2=zfd8fIhs8f0u5t4zDcUiEQ&usg=AFQjCNF_RLMjFnR2PM_kkRZZdYdRhQnnUA

Also when you guys are considering the early chuch. For example just take a look at the IC thread and you can read how the Early church and ECFs viewed the Blessed Virgin Mother.

Even as Michael is speaking on above with the Dormition of Mary or the CC Assumption.

This dates back to the second century in a great deal of this.

Granted when we are talking the IC, theology devolopes. Yet what we are talking here is basic Apostolic teaching. If not please do explain how not?

 

[rbarcia]

Irenaeus

The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 ***[A.D. 189]). ***

One isolated verse is not a doctrine

 

[emmaberry]

sorry if this is off-topic in this thread but it seems kinda relevent anyway, could someone please explain or link me a detail defination of what exactly “The Trinity” is, especially the holy spirit part - what exactly is that suppose to be? the articles i have read seem to make little sense to me and at most contradicting each other…i figure you guys might be equiped best with the relevent information on this topic - cheers!

Here is one of my favorite sites for reliable and informative explanations of Catholic Doctrine! (This article is on The Trinity): newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Let me add this to the idol worship theory.

google.com/url?q=http://www.truecatholic.us/pope/honor.htm&sa=U&ei=LTEKT5-pKcfb0QGw4b3NAg&ved=0CCMQFjAD&sig2=zfd8fIhs8f0u5t4zDcUiEQ&usg=AFQjCNF_RLMjFnR2PM_kkRZZdYdRhQnnUA

Also when you guys are considering the early chuch. For example just take a look at the IC thread and you can read how the Early church and ECFs viewed the Blessed Virgin Mother.

Even as Michael is speaking on above with the Dormition of Mary or the CC Assumption.

This dates back to the second century in a great deal of this.

Granted when we are talking the IC, theology devolopes. Yet what we are talking here is basic Apostolic teaching. If not please do explain how not?

The biggest issue that I can see with the Immaculate Conception and other declarations is that there were a number of ECFs and other doctors of the Church that did not support them.

 

[emmaberry]

The biggest issue that I can see with the Immaculate Conception and other declarations is that there were a number of ECFs and other doctors of the Church that did not support them.

Like who? Genuinely curious-not sarcasm.

 

[Hesychios]

Oops!! I should not have stated so definitively that Mary did NOT die-but the same can be said for the reverse. The Church is actually silent on the matter of whether Mary died a physical death. Church documents only stated that when she was assumed she had “completed her life.” See this link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232146

Sorry for the error!

Don’t be sorry, people are steering you wrong.

Actually, if you read MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS it clearly quotes several church fathers in their belief that she died. I think there are at least seven mentions of it (I forget, it’s been a while).

The very first quote the Pope gives is from a predecessor, Pope Adrian I who says: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.” He said she died, which is perfectly in keeping with the tradition he received.

He then goes on the quote the Byzantine Liturgy, of all things, as an ancient witness which says [addressing the Theotokos]: “God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”

He then quote Saint John of Damascus, a Doctor of the church and great Orthodox saint: “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.”

What is going on here? Was there some ancient conspiracy to make her appear to have died?

The Roman Catholic church originally called the Feast of the Assumption the Feast of the Dormition, just like the eastern churches have always done. The name for it was changed later, and I suppose the Roman Catholics started to forget the actual reason for it. They began to think in terms of of this apparently unique miracle for her, instead of that fact that it is intended to be a miracle we will all share in.

She is among the First Fruits of the coming resurrection, this resurrection we will all face.

The document taken as a whole supports the idea that she endured a bodily death, and I would say then that it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the church. It is disingenuous for anyone to say that because the Pope could put it all over the Papal Bull but did not include that fact in the one particular paragraph that it is an open question.

The entire Roman Catholic dogma of her assumption depends entirely on the account of her dying.

There is no other account, only the account of her body dying, that is the Patristic witness. There would be no proof for the Pope to point to if we take the story of her death, burial and resurrection out. Which, like it or not, he had to quote.

The Bull MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS would not exist if she had not died. The Roman Catholic church would not know that she had been assumed if they had not learned of her death, burial and resurrection. They learned it from the east, and that is what they learned.

It never was an open question, ever. It had been a part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the church from ancient early days of Christianity that many Roman Catholics don’t want to believe any more.

 

[emmaberry]

Don’t be sorry, people are steering you wrong.

Actually, if you read MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS it clearly quotes several church fathers in their belief that she died. I think there are at least seven mentions of it (I forget, it’s been a while).

No-I understand that it is the apostolic tradition , as held by early Fathers, that Mary died. I guess I was referring to the fact that the Church dogma does not enforce that Mary died. Catholics are not bound by obedience to Church dogma to believe in Mary’s earthly death-although that is certainly Church tradition. I have officially changed my mindset though-Mary died then was assumed into heaven. I had hardly heard of her assumption, her death had never been brought up to me and it never crossed my own mind. Glad I got that cleared up in my own mind. Thanks for your help!

"44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

 

[CopticChristian]

One isolated verse is not a doctrine

Amen rbarcia. Can you imagine that so many Protestants out there, in fact I think the JW use this verse to…to say that you can just say a prayer and get saved…

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This led to the sinners prayer and all sorts of false understanding. This verse in context was spoken to Christians, as the letter is written to Christians…

The beginning of the letter Paul says so…

To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me

They were of mutual faith so to use this verse as a means of getting saved is nonsense and of course it is nowhere mentioned anywhere else…good pick up.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The biggest issue that I can see with the Immaculate Conception and other declarations is that there were a number of ECFs and other doctors of the Church that did not support them.

Well just a suggestion, you could follow the thread on the IC we have going at the moment. Developement through open minds is begining to unfold their. However, yes I understand your point. And to gain better perspective on exactly where your coming from, then it would give insight into your thinking to post their.

However the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary was a feast day in your church before the CC.

Are you not committed as an Anglican to calling her Theotokos or Mother of God; for this is her title exactly defined by the Third and Fourth General Councils, those of Ephesus and Chalcedon, to which the Anglican Church has staunchly adhered? I don’t know where as an individual you stand in this theology. Which is open for discussion at the moment on the IC thread.

Here we are struggling to remain on topic with Mother of God. Though other thinking in history/theology is interacting by default because of Theotokos/Mother of God.

Peace

 

[JustaServant]

One isolated verse is not a doctrine

You said:

The Literal Translation of Theotokos is not Mother of God. It is something like God-bearer. Not really till the 3rd century we see this phrase being used.

To which I gave you a 2nd century quote show the phrase HAD been around earlier.

 

[Hesychios]

No-I understand that it is the apostolic tradition , as held by early Fathers, that Mary died. I guess I was referring to the fact that the Church dogma does not enforce that Mary died. Catholics are not bound by obedience to Church dogma to believe in Mary’s earthly death-although that is certainly Church tradition. I have officially changed my mindset though-Mary died then was assumed into heaven. I had hardly heard of her assumption, her death had never been brought up to me and it never crossed my own mind. Glad I got that cleared up in my own mind. Thanks for your help!

"44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

I think we understand each other.

The whole thing is peculiar.

Saying that the church never defined that Saint Mary died is like saying the church never formally defined that Pope John Paul II has died. Same thing.

One is thus (odd as that may seem) actually free to believe he is still alive! It may be nuts, but it’s no sin. Following that logic, I mean. But then it has enormous implications for the legitimacy of his successor Benedict XVI ! So these facts are intertwined in our faith.

The death of Pope John Paul II is a medical fact, an historical fact and a religious fact. The same is true of the death of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

So these things are bound together whether one likes to see it that way or not. Something does not have to be formally defined by the Pope to be believed. In fact, almost everything that Roman Catholics believe was not infallibly defined by any Pope. Some people say this special authority has only been invoked twice. All the rest of the body doctrine is (if we take the claims at face value) all Apostolic tradition, much of it certified or clarified by councils.

An odd fact: Saint Mary was never formally canonized! It is entirely a tradition.

And when a declaration like this Assumption is made, it is necessary to support the belief with reference to tradition. It has to be supportable in tradition.