Is Mary considered

[Scaun]

The term “wife” is not used, specifically to avoid tendentious persons then coming up and saying “When was the wedding performed”, “When were the banns read” or making other simplistic, over-literalist comments. Spouse is a looser term than wife, but signifies a permanent and singular relationship.

If the term “wife” is not used because of the reasons given above, are you saying it wouldn’t be wrong to use it (but it would just be that there are some risks from the ‘literalists’)?

No. You seem to be trying to over-literalise a spiritual and unique mystery in order to attack it.

You call her the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”. Just by looking at the words it’s obvious that I could just as well say “Wife of the Holy Spirit” since just analyzing the words, the meaning didn’t change much.

Also:*mystery ** /ˈmɪs.t ə r.i/ noun * **STRANGE/UNKNOWN THING **

1.   C  or  U ] something strange or not known which has not yet been explained or understood

How is this a “mystery” if you seem to understand it and you are actually explaining it to me? It stops becoming a mystery in the instance you understand it and/or you are able to explain it. You seem to be doing both. Not a mystery anymore.

Perhaps you people should open a dictionary once in a while.

And are you therefore claiming that Jesus is illegitimate?

No. Why would I?

That there was an improper element to His birth?

No. What improper element would that be?

The Church, which uses the term spouse in this context, doesn’t define it according to the Oxford Dictionary. It’s more in the sense of espoused, meaning set aside for God alone, as was the tabernacle, which is why I referred to the OT passage.

Why didn’t you say so from the beginning?

Oh yes, “espoused” can also have a similar meaning as you see in number 1 and 2: es·pouse
[ih-spouz, ih-spous] sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -poused, -pous·ing.

1. to make one’s own; adopt or embrace, as a cause.
2. to marry.
3. to give (a woman) in marriage.

Therefore, again, and for the last time, the term “wife” is inappropriate and not how the Church defines Mary’s relationship with the Holy Spirit.

I agree. It would be better to just call her a “vessel”.

 

[Della]

[/INDENT]I agree. It would be better to just call her a “vessel”.

Well, not to be nitpicky , it really wouldn’t because it implies that Mary did not conceive Jesus in her womb, but only received him already formed. IOW, it implies (and I’ve heard some say) that Mary’s egg wasn’t used, but that Jesus was implanted in her. That interpretation flies in the face of both Scripture and the Sacred Tradition from which Scripture came. Jesus was truly of the flesh of Mary, which means he was fully and truly man as well as fully and truly God. To say Mary was just a vessel could open the door to questioning the two natures of Christ. This is why the Church is so precise in its terminology–not to be overly officious, but to make clear who Jesus is–the Son of God and the Son of Man.

 

[Scaun]

Well, not to be nitpicky , it really wouldn’t because it implies that Mary did not conceive Jesus in her womb, but only received him already formed. IOW, it implies (and I’ve heard some say) that Mary’s egg wasn’t used, but that Jesus was implanted in her. That interpretation flies in the face of both Scripture and the Sacred Tradition from which Scripture came. Jesus was truly of the flesh of Mary, which means he was fully and truly man as well as fully and truly God. To say Mary was just a vessel could open the door to questioning the two natures of Christ. This is why the Church is so precise in its terminology–not to be overly officious, but to make clear who Jesus is–the Son of God and the Son of Man.

We are all vessels. Think of Elisha when he multiplied the oil, put in vessels. The story can be found in 2 Kings 4:Elisha and the Widow’s Oil

A certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets cried out to Elisha, saying, “Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the LORD. And the creditor is coming to take my two sons to be his slaves.”

So Elisha said to her, “What shall I do for you? Tell me, what do you have in the house?” And she said, “Your maidservant has nothing in the house but a jar of oil.”

Then he said, “Go, borrow vessels from everywhere, from all your neighbors—empty vessels; do not gather just a few. And when you have come in, you shall shut the door behind you and your sons; then pour it into all those vessels, and set aside the full ones.”

So she went from him and shut the door behind her and her sons, who brought the vessels to her; and she poured it out. Now it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said to her son, “Bring me another vessel.”

And he said to her, “There is not another vessel.” So the oil ceased. Then she came and told the man of God. And he said, “Go, sell the oil and pay your debt; and you and your sons live on the rest.”

(2 Kings 4:1-7 NKJV)
​

Even Peter compared humans with vessels:
“Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7 NKJV)
In the example I gave with Elisha, Elisha is Jesus, we are the vessels and the oil is the Holy Spirit. We are ‘filled’ with the Holy Spirit.

And Peter says in his epistle that we humans are ‘vessels’ (and by the way, he seems to actually call the woman the weaker vessel; I hope there is no problem with that).

So no, it is, according to Scriptures, correct to call Mary a “vessel”.

​

​

 

[Della]

We are all vessels. Think of Elisha when he multiplied the oil, put in vessels. The story can be found in 2 Kings 4:Elisha and the Widow’s Oil

A certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets cried out to Elisha, saying, “Your servant my husband is dead, and you know that your servant feared the LORD. And the creditor is coming to take my two sons to be his slaves.”

So Elisha said to her, “What shall I do for you? Tell me, what do you have in the house?” And she said, “Your maidservant has nothing in the house but a jar of oil.”

Then he said, “Go, borrow vessels from everywhere, from all your neighbors—empty vessels; do not gather just a few. And when you have come in, you shall shut the door behind you and your sons; then pour it into all those vessels, and set aside the full ones.”

So she went from him and shut the door behind her and her sons, who brought the vessels to her; and she poured it out. Now it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said to her son, “Bring me another vessel.”

And he said to her, “There is not another vessel.” So the oil ceased. Then she came and told the man of God. And he said, “Go, sell the oil and pay your debt; and you and your sons live on the rest.”

(2 Kings 4:1-7 NKJV)
​

Even Peter compared humans with vessels:
“Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.” (1 Peter 3:7 NKJV)
In the example I gave with Elisha, Elisha is Jesus, we are the vessels and the oil is the Holy Spirit. We are ‘filled’ with the Holy Spirit.

And Peter says in his epistle that we humans are ‘vessels’ (and by the way, he seems to actually call the woman the weaker vessel; I hope there is no problem with that).

So no, it is, according to Scriptures, correct to call Mary a “vessel”.

​

​

None of those verses refer to the engendering of the only begotten Son of God as a man. Mary is much more than a vessel (although she is that, too), she’s the Theotokos, she and no other. Her place is utterly unique. We defend her position so ardently not for her sake (although it’s only proper we should) but because everything we believe about Mary reinforces and confirms what God has revealed to us in his Son, Jesus Christ. It’s all about Jesus, not about Mary.

Saying Mary is a mere vessel encourages many to deny the reality of the Incarnation, as it did among many in the early Church–the first great heresy the Church had to stand against. Without a true Incarnation, there could have been no redemption. No redemption, means no salvation. It’s that important, which is why the Church teaches Mary is more than a vessel but the very Spouse of the Holy Spirit. It’s all a part of the mystery of God’s plan.

 

[Axion]

Legitimate children are born within espousal.

Those born without are illegitimate and born in a manner considered dishonourable.

Those are the points I am making.

Is the birth of Jesus an illegitimate and dishonourable one?

 

[Scaun]

None of those verses refer to the engendering of the only begotten Son of God as a man. Mary is much more than a vessel (although she is that, too), she’s the Theotokos, she and no other.

She is a vessel like me and you. Vessels may come in different shapes and forms. She had the “shape” to do the job God gave her, in other words, she was suited for it.

Her place is utterly unique.

If may I say: so is mine. Aren’t we all unique? Don’t we all have our unique places in his plan? Paul had a unique place. Joseph had an unique place. Pilate had an unique place. Judas, the one who betrayed Him, had a unique place. So yes, her place was unique, but so was the place of others, like Eve, Adam, Abraham, Israel, etc.

We defend her position so ardently not for her sake (although it’s only proper we should) but because everything we believe about Mary reinforces and confirms what God has revealed to us in his Son, Jesus Christ. It’s all about Jesus, not about Mary.

Okay.

Saying Mary is a mere vessel encourages many to deny the reality of the Incarnation, as it did among many in the early Church–the first great heresy the Church had to stand against. Without a true Incarnation, there could have been no redemption. No redemption, means no salvation. It’s that important, which is why the Church teaches Mary is more than a vessel but the very Spouse of the Holy Spirit. It’s all a part of the mystery of God’s plan.

I said she is a vessel. What is so wrong with that? By the way, I said ‘vessel’, not ‘mere vessel’. There is a difference. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

Legitimate children are born within espousal.

Those born without are illegitimate and born in a manner considered dishonourable.

Those are the points I am making.

Is the birth of Jesus an illegitimate and dishonourable one?

Mary was the spouse of Joseph. Thus he was not illegitimate since she was married.

 

[Della]

She is a vessel like me and you. Vessels may come in different shapes and forms. She had the “shape” to do the job God gave her, in other words, she was suited for it.
If may I say: so is mine. Aren’t we all unique? Don’t we all have our unique places in his plan? Paul had a unique place. Joseph had an unique place. Pilate had an unique place. Judas, the one who betrayed Him, had a unique place. So yes, her place was unique, but so was the place of others, like Eve, Adam, Abraham, Israel, etc.

All true, however, Mary’s position is unlike any other. No one else in all of history engendered the Son of God. It matters because of who her Son is–which goes to the heart of our redemption and salvation.

I said she is a vessel. What is so wrong with that? By the way, I said ‘vessel’, not ‘mere vessel’. There is a difference. Please don’t put words into my mouth.

My apologies–that was not my intention. I was trying (perhaps poorly) to emphasize that by referring to Mary primarily as a vessel and not as a mother there is a danger of thinking that Jesus was not fully man and fully God. Those of us who accept the two natures of Christ probably fine it difficult to believe there are those who call themselves Christian who don’t, but there are. And why is that? It’s because they think of Mary as a mere vessel. I’m not saying you think this way. Once again, I’m sorry for the mix up–my bad. uch:

 

[NHInsider]

All true, however, Mary’s position is unlike any other. No one else in all of history engendered the Son of God. It matters because of who her Son is–which goes to the heart of our redemption and salvation.

My apologies–that was not my intention. I was trying (perhaps poorly) to emphasize that by referring to Mary primarily as a vessel and not as a mother there is a danger of thinking that Jesus was not fully man and fully God. Those of us who accept the two natures of Christ probably fine it difficult to believe there are those who call themselves Christian who don’t, but there are. And why is that? It’s because they think of Mary as a mere vessel. I’m not saying you think this way. Once again, I’m sorry for the mix up–my bad. uch:

This was, of course, why the Council explicitly called Mary Mother of God - because there were those who were trying to separate Jesus’ divinity from His humanity. Calling her the Mother of God emphasized the inextricable unity of His human and divine natures.

On the other hand, the relatively recent theology of portraying Mary as a sort of womb-for-rent surrogate inevitably slides toward the implication that Jesus is not truly human, but rather a divine implant. Any woman, according to this reasoning, could have given birth to Him. And all to try and prevent a perceived “deification” of Mary, instead of acknowledging that the Lord could provide and prepare a suitable tabernacle in which to become Incarnate.

 

[inkaneer]

Here’s an idea. Why not let Mary tell us what her relationship is with God. In Luke’s gospel she states twice, once to the angel Gabriel and once to Elizabeth that she is the handmaid of the Lord. The concept of what a handmaid is or does has been lost as the concept is archaic but basically a handmaid was dedicated to the service of another person to the detriment of their own wants or desires. In ancient times a handmaid was usually a slave although that is not always the case. In any event the word conveys a dedication to and a willingness to do the wishes or advance the well being of another. So Mary is dedicated to God and as such there is no way that Joseph, being a just man as the scriptures say, is going to to intrude on that relationship.

 

[Della]

This was, of course, why the Council explicitly called Mary Mother of God - because there were those who were trying to separate Jesus’ divinity from His humanity. Calling her the Mother of God emphasized the inextricable unity of His human and divine natures.

On the other hand, the relatively recent theology of portraying Mary as a sort of womb-for-rent surrogate inevitably slides toward the implication that Jesus is not truly human, but rather a divine implant. Any woman, according to this reasoning, could have given birth to Him. And all to try and prevent a perceived “deification” of Mary, instead of acknowledging that the Lord could provide and prepare a suitable tabernacle in which to become Incarnate.

Yes, absolutely. Mary was named Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus 431 AD. It was in response to the Nestorian heresy that said Mary was not the mother of the person of Christ but only of his nature. This denied that Jesus was fully God and fully man and led to the mistaken idea that Jesus could not have truly been man since all flesh must be corrupt (or even utterly corrupt, as some claim).

It’s a complex issue but the upshot is there are people who call themselves Christians who believe that Jesus did not take his flesh from his mother, but only occupied her womb or conversely that he was just a man inhabited by the Holy Spirit and other such heresies.

In my discussions with Scaun I have been trying to show that deemphasizing Mary as the Mother of Jesus to the role of a vessel of no more importance than anyone else inevitably leads to denying the very personhood of Christ, her Son. So, in the end, it’s all about who Jesus is. All the Church’s Marian teachings are taught to defend and reinforce its teachings about Jesus not primarily to give praise and honor (although they do that, and rightfully so) to Mary.

 

[Axion]

Mary was the spouse of Joseph. Thus he was not illegitimate since she was married.

So now you’re saying Jesus was born of adultery? See where making these sort of arguments gets you.

 

[Scaun]

So now you’re saying Jesus was born of adultery? See where making these sort of arguments gets you.

I don’t follow. How did you get to this conclusion? I said that Mary was Joseph’s wife. Now explain how, from my affirmation, you deduce that Jesus was born of adultery.

 

[Thyme]

I have never heard of Mary being called the spouse of God before, but when I read it, I considered it to be a title. Mary isn’t literally God’s wife, but she gave birth to The Son and is the closest human to God. She is closer to God than anyone else could be.

It’s a bit like the titles ‘Our Lady of Fatima’ and ‘Our Lady of Lourdes’. There aren’t many Mary’s, they’re titles suiting different topics of discussion.

 

[Axion]

I don’t follow. How did you get to this conclusion? I said that Mary was Joseph’s wife. Now explain how, from my affirmation, you deduce that Jesus was born of adultery.

No. I said your logic brings you to this conclusion - which devolves from denying that Mary is spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[PJM]

=blkmustang;7089905]Hello,

I was having a conversation with a fellow Catholic and they stated that Mary is considered the mother of the Church and is also consider the wife of God is that correct? Being the mother of the Church I understand that but I dont understand the being Gods wife. The reason they said she’s Gods wife was because he got her pregnant.That did not sound right to me so I want to see if I can get some help. Thanks

God Bless

Mary is the “Mother of the Church” in the metaphorical sesnse that Christ IS the Church, and she is His Mother.

Similarly the thought that Mary is the “wife” I prefer the term “Bride” of the holy Spirit is a metaphorical, somewhat humanistic understanding that we can grasp.

 

[Scaun]

No. I said your logic brings you to this conclusion - which devolves from denying that Mary is spouse of the Holy Spirit.

But isn’t she the spouse of Joseph as well?

 

[Della]

But isn’t she the spouse of Joseph as well?

Yes, but only in so far as needing a husband as protector and helpmate. Being espoused to the Holy Spirit means she was set apart for God alone.

For our lurkers and seekers who are also reading these posts: This is why Mary asked the Angel Gabriel how she was to conceive a child when she “knew not man”. She knew perfectly well how a woman gets pregnant, and she that was promised to Joseph, but she obviously had something else in mind besides normal human relations to even ask the question. Otherwise she would have assumed Joseph was to be Jesus’ father. The Church, from the very beginning (and all Christians up until the 18th/19th centuries) has taught that Mary meant she had vowed herself to virginity even within the married state (as did Joseph or how else could she have stayed a virgin). Even the Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin held to this, and not just because they couldn’t let go of some of their Catholic heritage (as some claim) but because they understood that Mary being the mother of only one child, of Jesus, defended the two natures of Christ and thus our salvation. It can be hard for our Protestant brethren who don’t have this rich background in theological understanding (lost to them over the centuries) to see how this is important, but it is.

 

[PRmerger]

But isn’t she the spouse of Joseph as well?

Here’s where the distinction is significant.

It’s more appropriate to say Mary was the *wife *of Joseph. She was espoused to the Holy Spirit.

Words, syntax, context, culture…all provide important distinctions to help us understand theology.