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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicZ09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That was a nice post, CopticChristian. “When I was young, I admired people who were intelligent; now that I am older I admire people who are kind.” (a paraphrase from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel)

I only have a couple of minutes at this time, so for now I’ll reply briefly to a few things.

I didn’t say I had Dispensationalist beliefs. Yes, you rightly noted that the E. Free Church is officially Dispensationalist. However, members don’t have to be.

At one time–years ago–I did try to look at these issues from a variety of perspectives. I looked at Catholic and Protestant supersuccessionist theology (at its extreme, also known as replacement theology). Then I looked down the continuum to the opposite of replacement theology, an extreme form of dispensationalism, while covering the ground in between. I also spent a number of years immersed in how Judaism treats these matters. I did this study on my own, not in an academic setting, but I had access to university and seminary libraries in those pre-internet days.

I came away from my search with a firm sense of “I don’t know.” I suppose this might drive you to sleeplessness, but as I’ve gotten older I quite often find I can’t in good conscience do anything but reserve judgment due to inconclusive or contradictory evidence.

That is not a cop-out; I’ve just learned not to get my knickers in a twist over doctrine, whether it’s about matters of theodicy or eschatology or whatever. I’m open to further understanding, but I’m not uncomfortable in living with mystery and not-knowing. That is why being obedient to what I do know God wants from me for sure—practicing charity to God and fellow creatures—is my way of moving forward to when we will really see God face to face and the sight of Him will answer all our questions. He can teach me on the way—I’m open. But standing around arguing with other people over this stuff, and being unkind to each other in the process of that arguing, seems counter-productive to me…except for one thing: as you wrote in another post, God can teach us to be patient with each other as we learn how to discuss our differences charitably. I suspect that fruit–that patience and charity we can grow as we try to talk to each other–is sweet to God.

More later, if I’m home tonight…
 
Hi CopticChristian—

I don’t know that I have anything else to add that’s relevant to this thread. I’ve had a long day and I’m kind of tired out.

Just to quickly reiterate a couple of things----I said elsewhere on this thread that I don’t have any problem at all with the title of Mother of God for Mary. I asked other people I know, including some Baptists, for their thoughts; no one saw any problem with it. Some were familiar with the term Theotokos and some weren’t.

I question the dogmatic nature of the CC’s teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Maybe it did happen that way. My questioning of it as dogma, though, is on the grounds of whether or not there’s enough evidence from the earliest sources that make it a matter that absolutely must be believed. To me it seems like an issue of theological speculation, and thus open to be believed or not believed. I’m simply stating how it appears to me.

The Marian dogma of the Assumption seems to me to be on firmer ground. Again, making it a matter of required belief is something I question, but it does seem to me to have better early support.

Finally, once more, I 'm not particularly dispensationalist. That isn’t playing a role in anything pertinent to this thread, or how I view Mary. I most definitely do not believe in Replacement Theology or most forms of supersessionism, but that doesn’t make me a dispensationalist, either. There are eschatological theories in between the extremes.
 
rbarcia said:
Logical?

I have a degree in Math. Let’s continue this logic.

**Since: **
Mary = Mother of Jesus
Jesus = God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of God

But, I can add:
**Since: **
Father = God and Mary = Mother of God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of Father

I can also continue and say:

**Since: **
Holy Spirit = God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of Holy Spirit

I can now take the above conclusions:

Since:

Mary is Mother of Jesus
Mary is Mother of Father
Mary is Mother of Holy Spirit

Therefore
Mary is the Mother of the whole Trinity.

So with this line of reasoning, the only logical conclusion is catholics believe that Mary is the Mother of the entire Trinity, and so the title Mary of God really implies the whole Trinity.
Click to expand...
How do you refute this as a Christian mathematician, rb?

Since
Jesus = God
God = Trinity

Therefore
Jesus is a Trinity

Do you believe that Jesus is a Trinity? :confused:
 
Omar_Gatskill said:
Is she the mother of the Father and the Spirit too?? Of course not. She is the mother of Jesus, God the Son. That’s all.
Click to expand...
“…That’s all.” That’s all? That seems to me to be a whole lot. A miracle and a mystery…beautiful and awesome.🙂
 
CopticChristian—As a clarification, I added what I do think regarding the Marian dogma of the IC and Assumption simply to fill in information on my other beliefs about Mary. It’s not terribly pertinent to this thread, but I thought I’d give you a more complete idea of where I’m coming from. I don’t want to get into a discussion about it.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Hi CopticChristian—

I don’t know that I have anything else to add that’s relevant to this thread. I’ve had a long day and I’m kind of tired out.

Just to quickly reiterate a couple of things----I said elsewhere on this thread that I don’t have any problem at all with the title of Mother of God for Mary. I asked other people I know, including some Baptists, for their thoughts; no one saw any problem with it. Some were familiar with the term Theotokos and some weren’t.

I question the dogmatic nature of the CC’s teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Maybe it did happen that way. My questioning of it as dogma, though, is on the grounds of whether or not there’s enough evidence from the earliest sources that make it a matter that absolutely must be believed. To me it seems like an issue of theological speculation, and thus open to be believed or not believed. I’m simply stating how it appears to me.

The Marian dogma of the Assumption seems to me to be on firmer ground. Again, making it a matter of required belief is something I question, but it does seem to me to have better early support.

Finally, once more, I 'm not particularly dispensationalist. That isn’t playing a role in anything pertinent to this thread, or how I view Mary.** I most definitely do not believe in Replacement Theology or most forms of supersessionism, but that doesn’t make me a dispensationalist, either.** There are eschatological theories in between the extremes.
Click to expand...
As I understand it these are Protestant positions. The OHCAC does not use any of these terms and in consideration that The Church Old and New is the Isreal of God there is no replacement, there is an unfolding and fulfillment…what was physical became physical and spiritual in the New Covenant…Israel in the Middle East remains a pile of dirt unrelated to any Biblical prophecy of today.
 
Telestia said:
But there is no reason to make her equal to God,
Click to expand...
No Catholic ought to declare Mary equal to God, Telestia. If he did, he’d be committing heresy.
nor bestow her with numerous titles that Scripture does not support.
Click to expand...
If it’s contrary to Scripture to give someone titles, you’ll have to offer some verses which tell us that we ought not give anyone holy in the Bible “numerous titles”.
 
rbarcia said:
Logical?

I have a degree in Math. Let’s continue this logic.

**Since: **
Mary = Mother of Jesus
Jesus = God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of God

But, I can add:
**Since: **
Father = God and Mary = Mother of God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of Father

I can also continue and say:

**Since: **
Holy Spirit = God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of Holy Spirit

I can now take the above conclusions:

Since:

Mary is Mother of Jesus
Mary is Mother of Father
Mary is Mother of Holy Spirit

Therefore
Mary is the Mother of the whole Trinity.

So with this line of reasoning, the only logical conclusion is catholics believe that Mary is the Mother of the entire Trinity, and so the title Mary of God really implies the whole Trinity.

So the Holy Spirit conceived in His mother. The mother of the father, and all sorts of heretic thoughts.

This is all avoided by simply keeping Mary the Mother of Jesus. She is a blessed woman, but not all these other things catholics have elevated her to.

Of course, stating this, catholics will use tactics like “Protestants disrespect Mary” for disagreements in theology
Click to expand...
Math is a discovery and a tool of the created mind. God does not need math and God created math. Math is for the creature. The creature is trying to impose created logic of created math to understand the Holy of Holies as if God is to be added 1,2,3…

Please, do you understand the Trinity? If it is as easy as 1,2,3 why did I not know…I used to tutor college math…what did I miss?..Do you need Calculus or more to be able to explain the Trinity or is it simple addition as you have done here with your math degree…

youtube.com/watch?v=k3UL_Qtd-fM
 
rbarcia said:
Logical?

I have a degree in Math. Let’s continue this logic.

**Since: **
Mary = Mother of Jesus
Jesus = God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of God

But, I can add:
**Since: **
Father = God and Mary = Mother of God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of Father

I can also continue and say:

**Since: **
Holy Spirit = God

Therefore
Mary = Mother of Holy Spirit

I can now take the above conclusions:

Since:

Mary is Mother of Jesus
Mary is Mother of Father
Mary is Mother of Holy Spirit

Therefore
Mary is the Mother of the whole Trinity.

So with this line of reasoning, the only logical conclusion is catholics believe that Mary is the Mother of the entire Trinity, and so the title Mary of God really implies the whole Trinity.

So the Holy Spirit conceived in His mother. The mother of the father, and all sorts of heretic thoughts.

This is all avoided by simply keeping Mary the Mother of Jesus. She is a blessed woman, but not all these other things catholics have elevated her to.

Of course, stating this, catholics will use tactics like “Protestants disrespect Mary” for disagreements in theology
Click to expand...
JL: No that’s only your erroneous math conclusion not taking scripture into account. With your math Jesus whom you admit is God is also the Father and Holy Spirit (The hersay of modolism).

[Jn1:1 **In the beginning was the Word, and the Word WAS with God, and the Word WAS God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. … 14 And the Word WAS MADE flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.] According to scripture only the Word who WAS WITH God and who WAS God, BECAME flesh.] Mary is Mother of the Word=God made flesh.
 
jlhargus said:
JL: No that’s only your erroneous math conclusion not taking scripture into account. With your math Jesus whom you admit is God is also the Father and Holy Spirit (The hersay of modolism).

[Jn1:1 **In the beginning was the Word
Click to expand...
, and the Word WAS with God, and the Word WAS God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. … 14 And the Word WAS MADE flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.] According to scripture only the Word who WAS WITH God and who WAS God, BECAME flesh.] Mary is Mother of the Word=God made flesh.

Well there you go…I tutored Math…I did not tutor Scripture…so here is the key…Wow I thought I had missed something…👍
 
CopticChristian said:
As I understand it these are Protestant positions. The OHCAC does not use any of these terms and in consideration that The Church Old and New is the Isreal of God there is no replacement, there is an unfolding and fulfillment…what was physical became physical and spiritual in the New Covenant…Israel in the Middle East remains a pile of dirt unrelated to any Biblical prophecy of today.
Click to expand...
CopticChristian—

While not wanting to further derail this thread, I’m wondering what is your basis for this belief—“Israel in the Middle East remains a pile of dirt unrelated to any Biblical prophecy of today.”

Catholics do use the term “supersessionism”. It didn’t originate as a Protestant position.

This is a subject for another thread, I know, but maybe you can briefly let me know what’s behind your statement.
 
AbideWithMe said:
CopticChristian—

While not wanting to further derail this thread, I’m wondering what is your basis for this belief—“Israel in the Middle East remains a pile of dirt unrelated to any Biblical prophecy of today.”

Catholics do use the term “supersessionism”. It didn’t originate as a Protestant position.

This is a subject for another thread, I know, but maybe you can briefly let me know what’s behind your statement.
Click to expand...
yes this is a subject for another thread. But you do know that the dispensational view that makes a distinction between Israel and the Church is a new view, just about 150 to 200 years old? and that the majority of Protestant theologians before that, let alone Catholic or Orthodox, saw the Church as the continuation and fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Old Covenant, as is so clearly taught in the Book of Hebrews?
 
cajunhillbilly said:
yes this is a subject for another thread. But you do know that the dispensational view that makes a distinction between Israel and the Church is a new view, just about 150 to 200 years old? and that the majority of Protestant theologians before that, let alone Catholic or Orthodox, saw the Church as the continuation and fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Old Covenant, as is so clearly taught in the Book of Hebrews?
Click to expand...
Cajunhillbilly—

Yes, I do know that dispensationalist thought, as a fairly elaborate system, is relatively new. As I said in a previous post, I’m not really a dispensationalist, I’m an “I don’t know”-ist. This is a very complicated subject. However–though this is indeed a topic for another thread—making a “distinction between Israel and the Church” is done by others besides dispensationalists.

As for the “Church as the continuation and fulfillment of the types and shadows of the Old Covenant”–yes. While I’m not speaking for dispensationalists, from what I’ve read, I think most if not all would agree with this…with the disclaimer that this still doesn’t answer how to view the very specific promises of God in the OT to a particular people. Do we just “spiritualize” them away, and thereby do considerable violence to the OT?

Here’s a thoughtful article by Dr. Edward Kessler: axt.org.uk/essays/Kessler.htm

Catholics for Israel also has a good entry under “Replacement Theology”.

Way off topic…I’d start another thread but I’m really tied up with work. I just asked for a brief clarification from CopticChristian himself. Or, he can defer his answer to another thread and another time, too.
 
AbideWithMe said:
CopticChristian—

While not wanting to further derail this thread, I’m wondering what is your basis for this belief—"**Israel in the Middle East remains a pile of dirt **unrelated to any Biblical prophecy of today."

Catholics do use the term “supersessionism”. It didn’t originate as a Protestant position.

This is a subject for another thread, I know, but maybe you can briefly let me know what’s behind your statement.
Click to expand...
In history, from the beginning of time God worked with people and promised them many things…It is the people that God works with. The Earth is His creation. Israel of today, and this is part and parcel of another thread, is a country created by the United Nations at the behest of British Evangeliclals…You can research this if you like…I would not start another thread about this…this subject tends to get de railed in my experience…do a search for yourself on Israel and British Evangelicals…consider how God worked in the OT to give the people what He wanted them to have and what He did not want them to have…then look at Israel today…was it a miracle…7 days, 7 trumpets, was it through some miracle or just politics…what prophet was involved?..I see it as a work of man…

Provide some Catholic Church documents that use the term supersessionism…I do not think you will find them…search and see if you are correct…note that any Catholic can say anything they want…the question is will you find a document from the Vatican that uses it…that is what you must find…I don’t think you will find that and then that will be your answer…

In the mean time imagine the sound of one hand clapping…👍
 
AbideWithMe said:
CopticChristian—
While not wanting to further derail this thread, I’m wondering what is your basis for this belief—"Israel in the Middle East remains a pile of dirt unrelated to any Biblical prophecy of today. "
Click to expand...
JL: God still loves natural Israel. When Israel accepts Christ they will be grafted back into the one olive tree. The following links are my response to dispensationalism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8329765&postcount=50

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8329769&postcount=51

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8330029&postcount=52
 
PRmerger said:
No Catholic ought to declare Mary equal to God, Telestia. If he did, he’d be committing heresy.

That’s an interesting statement. I’ve been to some freinds of ours’ church where about ten very large statues of Mary decorate the church and the grounds. They are of a wide variety including Our Lady of Guadeloupe and one which depicts her as the queen of heaven with a very large and prestigeous gold crown on her head. I have seen on occasion people mainly hispanics bow and kneel in front of the statue and petition Mary for divine favors and pray to her for an hour of more on their knees kissing her feet. If this isn’t worship and heresy, I and many many others surely don’t have a clue what it would be then. I personally find it offensive and idolotrous on the simple fact that this all takes place where we are supposed to worship our Lord and God and celebrate the sacrements. Honor and respect and a high regard for what St. Mary did and the kind of life she lived? Absolutely. But, this is worship and its wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Omar_Gatskill said:
I have seen on occasion people mainly hispanics bow and kneel in front of the statue and petition Mary for divine favors and pray to her for an hour of more on their knees kissing her feet. If this isn’t worship and heresy, I and many many others surely don’t have a clue what it would be then.
Click to expand...
But bowing down and kneeling is not necessarily worshipping, is it?

Or would you say that these Evangelical Christians are worshipping a box of kleenex?

 
Hesychios said:
I don’t understand … is this a contemporary criticism? I have assumed (perhaps wrongly) that most Protestants accepted the seven Councils, would this be a Mormon complaint, or (perhaps more likely) Jehovah Witness complaint?
Click to expand...
The phrase wouldn’t arouse Mormon criticism. In the first edition of the Book of Mormon published in 1830, a vision given to Nephi (the writer of the first book in the BOM) concerning the future coming of Christ, is couched in these terms by the angel who explained its meaning to the writer:

“Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh” (Book of Mormon, p.25).

For Latter-day Saints, Jesus is God. Mary is His mother. So the phrase is not problematic.
 
martininthefiel said:
A lot of protestants don’t quite get the 'fully human and fully God" thing. While they claim to be Trinitarian Christians, they really don’t quite understand the Nicene Creed’s implications.

“Mary worship” is a frequent criticism protestants raise against Catholics. In solo scriptora denominations it’s even worse.

Lutherans and Anglicans sort of get it.

If Christ is born of Mary, then logically she is the ‘Mother of God’.
Click to expand...
To me a lot of Protestants have trouble with the incarnation and the Holy Trinity dogma.

You will hear them call Jesus the Son of God often.

But how often do you hear a Protestant use God the Son?

It’s like they think Jesus is inferior to the Father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top