In my opinion, "Mary Mother of God", is too general, and misleading as a teaching

[MarkRome]

Mary is our mother too, not just John’s for John represents the Church.

In Revelation 12 we see a depiction of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus. If you skip down to verse 17 the inspired writer says, “Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.”

Who might the rest of her offspring be? You and I brother and the entire Body of Christ.

 

[TheLittleLady]

he called Mary “woman”

And what did that manner of address mean in the common dialect of the time?

My point is, Mary, being the bearer of Jesus for nine months, does that automatically makes her “the mother of God”?

Is it your argument that Mary bore a fully human son, who was not Divine, and that son at some later point took on his Divine nature?

This is an ages old heresy.

Mary gave birth to Christ’s entire person, fully God and fully man. God incarnate (literally means speaks of “meat”, think carne asada at the taco stand? Same Latin root word.)

 

[pnewton]

Explain me why is my post on this topic argument ad hominem .

Trolling is focusing on the poster, not what is said. That is, by definition, ad hominem. Saying that an argument sounds like trolling addresses no point.

For those that might suspect such ulterior motives, there is always the option of looking up the person and seeing if they are new, or if they have a history of starting a crazy thread, then leaving. Trolling.

I hope that Catholics here are not so insecure in their faith that they find in indefensible. There is one validity I can see in the OP, and a couple of good answers to that. But discussion where that person is now shut down.

Is it your argument that Mary bore a fully human son, who was not Divine, and that son at some later point took on his Divine nature?

Unfortunately, the topic cannot be discussed here. The poster that you are asking these question of can no longer respond. I too would have liked clarification.

 

[Mark121359]

I believe what’s lost on the OP, is that you’re not just taking on random CAF forum members here, you’re actually taking on the greatest theologians of the Catholic Church. Aquinas, Augustine, Bellarmine, Liguori, Scotus…and the list goes on and on and on.

And also, if there’s one thing I’ve learned on here over the years, it’s to never…and I repeat…NEVER, ever go after Our Lady. Especially to deny one of the four Marian dogmas like that, when you yourself are listed as Catholic. With a very weak argument to boot! On this forum, that’s tantamount to taking a stick and stirring up a hornet’s nest!!! And as you very well know, that isn’t going to end pretty!

 

[PennyinCanada]

This prayer is said in every Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom to the Mother of God. Beautifully said.

It is truly right to bless you, O God-bearing One, as the ever-blessed and immaculate Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim and by far more glorious than the seraphim; ever a virgin, you gave birth to God the Word, O true Mother of God, we magnify you.

If Mary had just lived out her life like every other woman, we would not be magnifying her. It’s because she is the Ark of the New Covenant. It’s all pointing to Christ the Redeemer of the world. God had very specific instructions on how to build the first Ark of the Covenant, to contain the items it was to have. Certainly Christ outshadows anything that was put into that old Ark.

 

[VeryBlessed]

I completely understand the defense of the title, and I see the point of it. But I’m an educated Catholic. The title is well-intentioned and it is truth when explained properly, but the fact is, it is extremely misleading for non-Catholics. To the uneducated, it does sound as if we Catholics think that she was somehow the source of his divinity. I know the church is NOT saying that, yet it is so very easily misinterpreted. I grieve the gulf between non-Catholics and us; this term doesn’t help. I understand it, I believe it, but it drives an unnecessary wedge due to the ease with which it is misunderstood.

 

[porthos11]

I completely understand the defense of the title, and I see the point of it. But I’m an educated Catholic. The title is well-intentioned and it is truth when explained properly, but the fact is, it is extremely misleading for non-Catholics. To the uneducated, it does sound as if we Catholics think that she was somehow the source of his divinity. I know the church is NOT saying that, yet it is so very easily misinterpreted. I grieve the gulf between non-Catholics and us; this term doesn’t help. I understand it, I believe it, but it drives an unnecessary wedge due to the ease with which it is misunderstood.

It’s not our job to water down a title that is so needed for a precise expression of Christological truth. This term is what we defined against the Nestorian heretics and has been an essential piece of the orthodox Christian faith. This is not some pious title invented to honour the Blessed Virgin. It was defined by a very ancient ecumenical council a thousand years before Protestantism ever made the scene. No one had any issues with it since then until Calvin.

It is not an unnecessary wedge any more than the Eucharist is an unnecessary wedge. It is a very necessary title. If it’s a wedge, it’s not one of our own making. We cannot dilute a very important truth for the sake of the ignorant. Our job is to educate, defend, and uphold that truth. If we drop the title for any reason, we might as well just admit to being Nestorian.

 

[Usagi]

Yes, Jesus is God.
Yes, Jesus is the son of God.

My point is, Mary, being the bearer of Jesus for nine months, does that automatically makes her “the mother of God”?

For example, a buddhist lady give birth to a son. Her son, later was baptized as an adult. Then, her son teach her about christanity. She decided to be baptized. Her son, who teaches her about Jesus, is her spiritual father. She is still his mother, but her son has become her spiritual father on the day she was baptized.

Please also read Jesus spoke to the woman at the well. He said “ God is spirit . Whoever whorship God, must worship Him in Spirit & in Truth”

Sure, but what does any of that have to do with Mary being literally, biologically and in terms of upbringing, Jesus’ mother? And therefore properly called Theotokos, in order to safeguard the truth of Jesus’ singular personhood?

 

[Usagi]

God is spirit. Mary, did not gave Jesus His Divinity.

Yes. We all know that. No one claims that.

But she did carry, give birth to, and rear — that is, she was in every sense the mother of — Jesus, the one person who is both fully man and fully God.

Mary Mother of God is misleading

Not when it is properly understood as expressing a truth about Jesus rather than an honor belonging to Mary. As everyone else here correctly recognizes.

 

[Usagi]

Jesus is fully human too, and his mother is Mary

Exactly! And what the Council of Ephesus concluded, contra Nestorius, is that Jesus can’t be divided up such that only one of His natures has a mother.

Jesus is one person, fully human and fully God. Mary is the human being who is the mother of that person. Of course she is in no way the origin of His Divinity, but because He is God — because the baby in her womb is the same person that created the universe, though the human body that gestated in her womb wasn’t around then — she is rightly called Mother of God,

 

[thelovelyone]

Looks like she’s been temporarily suspended.

I wonder what she did to get suspended?

 

[Katie777]

What? Jesus is God so is the Holy Spirit.
Shes Jesus’ Mother.

Do you Not believe in the Holy Trinity?

 

[pnewton]

It’s not our job to water down a title that is so needed for a precise expression of Christological truth.

I would argue that the term above, God-bearing one, is more precise. The word “mother” in ever context except this one means that the person did not just bear the person, but is the progenitor of the person. Mary is not the progenitor of God, at least in the way that term is used. God did not proceed from her, for example. I am not saying that I do not agree with this term, only that precision is the one thing it lacks, that is, without a substantial definition of terms.

The term makes a great deal of sense in context of the Council of Ephesus, of course, assuming all humanity is familiar with Church history. Personally, my own priest has gone to great pains several times to explain this, at least a dozen, in its historical context.

 

[Usagi]

I completely understand the defense of the title, and I see the point of it. But I’m an educated Catholic. The title is well-intentioned and it is truth when explained properly, but the fact is, it is extremely misleading for non-Catholics. To the uneducated, it does sound as if we Catholics think that she was somehow the source of his divinity. I know the church is NOT saying that, yet it is so very easily misinterpreted. I grieve the gulf between non-Catholics and us; this term doesn’t help. I understand it, I believe it, but it drives an unnecessary wedge due to the ease with which it is misunderstood.

The title, and the proper understanding of it, predate the misunderstanding by centuries. All we can do is give the proper explanation. Even if we were somehow to stop using the title tomorrow, it would still be there in hojillions of written sources.

 

[Maximian]

I am very glad of this post because it illustrates very well the importance of theology and the dangers of being sloppy about it. The details DO matter and the Church was right to settle the question at Nicaea and elsewhere.

Regarding Jesus’ words on the Cross to Mary and John, there is a pragmatic and a doctrinal meaning. Pragmatically Mary and John were entrusted to each other.

But remember that John as an Apostle was part of the wider church which is the Body of Christ, which is why Mary is also mother of us all.

 

[VeryBlessed]

If we drop the title for any reason, we might as well just admit to being Nestorian.

I admit, I had to look up Nestorianism. It was sad how his rejection of “Theotokos” either led to, or unmasked, other more serious heretical beliefs. It’s like the proverbial crack in the dam. It’s a good illustration of the importance of accepting the magisterial teaching authority of the church.

The barriers to unity are legion. And in reflecting on this thread and even on what I’d said, it hit me that the misunderstandings that drive disunity are twofold. Some misunderstandings are innocent, born of ignorance. Other misunderstandings are willful. We explain and explain but it seems they can’t hear or won’t listen and understand.