Identify the heresy

[Roseeurekacross]

A knowledge of church history, especially as it relates to heresy and how the church confessed the truth, and how this developed into dogma and doctrine

and how our Sacred Traditions developed, is Mary is the Theotokos, not the Christotokos,

Is, in my opinion, essential , and in the Church’s opinion

essential to our understanding of who Jesus is and who God is.

It is also God’s revelation to us. And defined in the 5th Century.

And a knowledge of how that litany works is beneficial as well.

 

[pnewton]

The OP brought up a very valid point, it was a heresy.

Then please show where this has been called heresy, or where it has been called heresy to call Mary by another title without including Mother of God. If you are right, and this is heresy, this should be an easy task for you, with not circuitous reasoning needed.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ll admit I’m not the most theologically sharp knife in the drawer, but plenty of saints got to Heaven without having a “knowledge of Church history.” Some of them did poorly in school and some were barely educated, but they knew who Mary was. It is not “essential” that everybody be able to rattle off these councils unless they are planning to argue apologetics or study theology.

If one simply accepts that Mary is the Mother of God, as does just about every Catholic I have ever met from 7-year-olds in school to adult high-school dropouts to PhD’s, then you don’t need to know the entire history of the Church on which council resolved that matter and when. Furthermore, if one accepts that Mary is Mother of God, no harm is done by calling her Mother of Christ or any other title from the litany. It is furthermore not necessary for an average Catholic to know what Greek word “Christ” came from or what it meant. I guarantee you that most of my good Catholic forebears didn’t know Greek from pig Latin, and it didn’t stop them from understanding Mary’s role as Mother of God AND Mother of Christ, and being devoted to her.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

To answer, please read and go back over what I said. About the heresy the op referred to.

I feel you are missing what I am saying. One doesn’t need to be a Ph.D, a theologian, legal eagle, plumber, devotee to 33 day’s consecration, any saint, any sinners. IQ score makes no difference. Children grasp this.

Maybe I am blessed to have 2 Bishops and 2 Vicar -generals take the time to Teach us. Our Vicar General is all over catholic concepts, makes them simple, in Sunday homilies. I have monks bent on teaching traditional (as in not other religions) orthodox (as in straight) Vatican teaching from both pre and post V11.
If this is the case I thank God I am so blessed.

Now to repeat, you might understand what I am saying.

Jesus has a fullly human nature and fully Divine nature. We reading this agree, we know this.
Mary, his mother , therefore, is the mother of a God, the Word Incarnate, both a fully human and fully Divine baby, child, adult. God. We agree , those reading.

The litany frdavid refers to explains this in declaring Mary mother of God, AND , (not or, no option either/ or) Mary mother of Christ.
If one of these had been left out of the litany, the litany would be in very grave error in denying the true humanity and / or Divinity of Jesus. In praying this litany we are confessing Mary as the mother of God.
That’s what we are doing. Just as when we pray the Apostles Creed for example, we are confessing Jesus as begotten by God the Holy Spirit.

For the Early Church a heresy was kicking around, that denied the Divinity of Jesus. This heresy only declared Jesus human, in saying Mary was the mother of Christ, it was a deliberate saying Mary is the mother of a Christ, an anointed one.
A fifth century catholic council confessed Mary to be the mother of God to deny this heresy and fully fix Mary as the mother of fully human and fully Divine Jesus.
Now the op quite rightly brought this up. This heresy. In her concerns about a hymn.
Yes the op was confused about what nourishment meant with respect to the hymn.
However, she was quite right in explaining the heresy and wondering if it was somehow applied to this scenario.
And good on her for actually questioning what she was saying and repeating, and thinking about it.

Now the question of harm was raised by tisbear.
In response, and something I have been thinking about all day,

Look at all the threads we get
‘Why is Mary the queen of heaven’.
‘Why should we venerate Mary’
‘Why is Mary full of grace’
‘Why is Mary number 1 saint’

Here’s my answer

There are many People, both Catholic and not that do not understand two things.

One is Jesus is fully human and fully divine
Two is that Mary is the mother of God.
And this makes Mary quite rightly take her place as the Queen of heaven and beyond worth to humanity.

And the modern heresy I referred to, which has been mentioned in a few recent threads is monositism. That modern Catholics and others are denying the full humanity of Jesus.

Questions?

 

[Gorgias]

Two is that Mary is the mother of God.
And this makes Mary quite rightly take her place as the Queen of heaven and beyond worth to humanity.

Actually, what leads to her being “queen of heaven” is that her son is a Davidic King.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

My only question is why you continue to post these very long off-topic posts on an issue that a priest concisely settled, but whatever. Have a nice day.

 

[FrDavid96]

The OP brought up a very valid point, it was a heresy. Mary is the mother of God. The correct title of Mary is Mother of God, not mother of Christ.

And you can see in that litany, her correct title is applied.

And we all need to be aware of what the correct title of Mary is, as She is the Theotokos not the Christotokos.

There is a huge distinction with Church history attached.

So you see in that Litany, Mary is correctly described as the mother of the Human Jesus and the mother of the Divine Jesus.

That Litany would NOT have passed muster in the Catholic Church if it had left out Mother of God.

No.

There is no one correct title.

What you’re doing here is completely misunderstanding what the Church teaches. Saying “Mother of Christ” is perfectly legitimate. It is ONLY when such a title is used to specifically exclude “Mother of God” is that title a problem.

Please refrain from saying that something is a heresy when you don’t understand what the Church is teaching in the first place.

 

[AugustTherese]

Nestorius preferred the term Christotokos to the exclusion of Theotokos.

I’m quite certain that was the context that @Roseeurekacross was using.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Thank you for this clarification.

 

[pnewton]

Nestorius preferred the term Christotokos to the exclusion of Theotokos.

Then that makes some sense. I will agree that any parish where Nestorius is a member should not use that song, as a matter of prudence.

 

[AugustTherese]

Then that makes some sense. I will agree that any parish where Nestorius is a member should not use that song, as a matter of prudence.

This is what was mentioned by @Roseeurekacross:

For the Early Church a heresy was kicking around, that denied the Divinity of Jesus. This heresy only declared Jesus human, in saying Mary was the mother of Christ, it was a deliberate saying Mary is the mother of a Christ, an anointed one.

So, that is the context of her argument saying that Theotokos is the correct title, or preferred title and not merely ‘Mother of Christ’. Nestorius advocated ‘Mother of Christ’ to the exclusion of ‘Mother of God’ attempting to deny the deity of Christ.

 

[AugustTherese]

That member has repeatedly insisted that the title of “Mother of Christ” is a heresy

To the exclusion of “Mother of God”, yes, that is the Nestorian heresy.

This is her context:

For the Early Church a heresy was kicking around, that denied the Divinity of Jesus. This heresy only declared Jesus human, in saying Mary was the mother of Christ, it was a deliberate saying Mary is the mother of a Christ, an anointed one.

So, in that context, yes, that title to the exclusion of Theotokos, is heresy.

 

[pnewton]

To the exclusion of “Mother of God”, yes, that is the Nestorian heresy.

Well, there goes “Hail Holy Queen Enthroned Above.” It uses another title for Mary without including “Mother of God.”

I asked this earlier with no answer. If this were really a heresy, it should be no problem showing where the Church has said that use of a title like Mother of Christ, without using Mother of God in the same song, Mass, sentence, etc., was a heresy.

So, the first poster couldn’t do this. Would you take a stab at finding this alleged heresy?

To clarify, denying Mary is the Mother of God is a heresy, so that is a given. The question is, why is use of an alternative title either deny this, or has been declared a heresy by the Catholic Church.

That last part is critical.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

To the exclusion of “Mother of God”, yes, that is the Nestorian heresy.

Well, there goes “Hail Holy Queen Enthroned Above.” It uses another title for Mary without including “Mother of God.”

I asked this earlier with no answer. If this were really a heresy, it should be no problem showing where the Church has said that use of a title like Mother of Christ, without using Mother of God in the same song, Mass, sentence, etc., was a heresy.

So, the first poster couldn’t do this. Would you take a stab at finding this alleged heresy?

To clarify, denying Mary is the Mother of God is a heresy, so that is a given. The question is, why is use of an alternative title either deny this, or has been declared a heresy by the Catholic Church.

That last part is critical.

“Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord’s economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God.” - Nestorius to Cyril, 431 AD

“If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema”. - Canon 1, Council of Ephesus 431 AD

Calling Mary the ‘Mother of Christ’ in-of-itself is not heretical. Calling Mary the ‘Mother of Christ’ to the exclusion of the ‘Mother of God’, as Nestorius did with: “so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God”, is heretical and was anathematized. This context was used by @Roseeurekacross with these words:

For the Early Church a heresy was kicking around, that denied the Divinity of Jesus. This heresy only declared Jesus human, in saying Mary was the mother of Christ, it was a deliberate saying Mary is the mother of a Christ, an anointed one.
A fifth century catholic council confessed Mary to be the mother of God to deny this heresy and fully fix Mary as the mother of fully human and fully Divine Jesus.

So, again, to say that Mary is the Mother of Christ but not the Mother of God is heresy. People took @Roseeurekacross’ words out of the context I showed and tried to claim her words were heresy. Not only was that uncharitable, but it was unfair and inaccurate.

 

[pnewton]

So, again, to say that Mary is the Mother of Christ but not the Mother of God is heresy.

Again, if the Church does not say this, you saying it does not make it so. If you want to keep repeating it, then go ahead. There is not limit to how many times I can point out that you do not speak for the Church.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Nestorius preferred the term Christotokos to the exclusion of Theotokos.
I’m quite certain that was the context that @Roseeurekacross was using.

Thankyou for reading and thinking about what I have written, IN support of what the OP brought up.

Now, that’s heresy.

Denying that Mary is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos) is indeed heretical.

She is both the Mother of God and the Mother of Christ.

You know exactly what I mean. And if you don’t, please re read what I have written. Perhaps if you read what I wrote , it would become clear.

I have been discussing just what August Therese said. I have repeatedly insisted it was the heresy that was referred to in the OP.
You and everyone else will note I said WAS in discussing this. This WAS the heresy. That the nesterorians denied Mary the mother of God and just insisted Mary was the mother of Jesus. And you will know this was to deny the Divinity of God
And that was the OPS point. and it was correct.

I also insist and you will agree, that the litany you placed in here would not have passed muster without
Mary being listed as both the Mother of God and the Mother of Christ.

It would pay people to actually READ what is written,

Today in our Sunday sermon our Priest discussed two things, Clericalism and also the words of Karl Rahner.
Rahner, whom I am sure you are familiar with, said there is a thick layer of ash covering the church
Under this ash are the embers of the church,
Still burning and they will eventually rise to the surface again.

This is my last word on the topic.

I pray for those on this thread who cannot see or understand what our church teaches, Specifically
Mary is the Mother of God and the Mother of Christ, Mary is the mother of a fully human Jesus and a fullly divine Jesus. We do not orphan either of these concepts at the expense of the other.

And as my Bishop says , whom I listen to above any others.
let me be very clear, Mary is the Mother of God, Not just the mother of a human Jew who ministered in 1AD.

 

[FrDavid96]

You know exactly what I mean. And if you don’t, please re read what I have written. Perhaps if you read what I wrote , it would become clear.
…
It would pay people to actually READ what is written,

…

You are not being clear at all. You have repeatedly said that calling our BVM the Mother of Christ (Christotokos) is heretical.

You’ve posted it here. I’m referencing the posts.

I do know what you mean, but that’s not what you’re posting.

The problem is not other people misunderstanding you, or other people’s ignorance.

The problem is that you’re posting sentences that contradict the Catholic faith and you’re expecting people to understand “what you mean” rather than “what you write.”

To say Mary is the mother of Christ denies the Divinity of Jesus. It only acknowledges the humanity of Jesus

That is absolutely not true. In no way does saying that She is the Mother of Christ deny the Divinity of Jesus.

It either does or it does not. It does not.

The OP brought up a very valid point, it was a heresy. Mary is the mother of God. The correct title of Mary is Mother of God, not mother of Christ.

Again, it is completely wrong to say that her title is not “mother of Christ.” It is ONE OF MANY perfectly legitimate titles.

…
And we must be extremely exact in our terminology, and teach others the why, who what and how.
…

Yes indeed. We must.

The OP brought up a very valid point, it was a heresy. Mary is the mother of God. The correct title of Mary is Mother of God, not mother of Christ.
…

And here you make a post that specifically denies that Mary is the Mother of Christ.

Now, I am certain you don’t intend to say that, but the fact is that you did say it. You posted it. And it’s not the first time.

…

and how our Sacred Traditions developed, is Mary is the Theotokos, not the Christotokos,

…

And you do it AGAIN here.

This is not a matter of saying “Mother of God, NOT Mother of Christ.”

She is BOTH-AND; not either-or.

…
She is both the Mother of God and the Mother of Christ…

Finally! Yes. That’s correct.

The problem is that this is the first time you’re saying that. Up to this point, you’ve repeatedly said very pointedly that She is not the Mother of Christ.

Anyway, I hope I’m done with this.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

You are in my prayers frdavid

 

[Roseeurekacross]

http://www.catholicaustralia.com.au/what-catholics-believe/170

 

[AugustTherese]

This was a heresy. Mary is the mother of God.

To say Mary is the mother of Christ denies the Divinity of Jesus. It only acknowledges the humanity of Jesus

Therefore a Council was called to deny this heresy and in fact declare Mary too be the mother of God.

This is where I am sure everyone lost their minds.

To say that Mary is the Mother of Christ, does not necessarily or automatically deny the deity of Christ. The term is perfectly acceptable.

However, to say that Mary is the Mother of Christ alone to the exclusion of her being the Mother of God like Nestorius did here:

Holy scripture, wherever it recalls the Lord’s economy, speaks of the birth and suffering not of the godhead but of the humanity of Christ, so that the holy virgin is more accurately termed mother of Christ than mother of God .” - Nestorius to Cyril, 431 AD

That is heresy! The context of @Roseeurekacross’ words for this heresy was here:

Therefore a Council was called to deny this heresy and in fact declare Mary too be the mother of God.

Instead of perhaps asking for some semantic clarification from @Roseeurekacross, people jumped all over her and labeled her words as heresy.

She alluded to the Nestorian heresy and the Council of Ephesus in nearly every one of her posts.