MARY-Mother of God--Theotókos-God-bearer-The one who gives birth to God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
MARY
***Mother of God–***Theotókos-God-bearer-The one who gives birth to God

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**495**Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”. In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Luke 1:43
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall **name **him Emmanuel," which means “God is with us.”

Luke 1:35
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy**, the Son of God**.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

**Does anybody here have a problem with St. Mary being referred to as **“Mother of God”? If so, then why?
 
Nope, No problem at all !
Thank you for all the refrences too Jimmy B. 🎉
 
Jimmy_B said:
MARY
***Mother of God–***Theotókos-God-bearer-The one who gives birth to God

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**495**Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”. In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Luke 1:43
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall **name **him Emmanuel," which means “God is with us.”

Luke 1:35
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy**, the Son of God**.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

**Does anybody here have a problem with St. Mary being referred to as **“Mother of God”? If so, then why?
Click to expand...
Nope. The Blessed Virgin is the Holy Theotokos, the God bearer, the Mother of God.
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. **Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin. **
Click to expand...
old.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/person.html
 
Jimmy_B said:
Does anybody here have a problem with St. Mary being referred to as “Mother of God”? If so, then why?
Click to expand...
No one should have a problem, since that’s who she gave birth to, the Incarnate World within whom the fullness of the God dwelt (Col 1:19).

Historically, the biggest people who did protest were the Nestorians, who believed Christ was a man chosen to inherit the Word of God (something close, though not entirely similar, to what Muslims believe about Him). They called her Christotokos (“Christ bearer”) rather than Theotokos.
 
The only people who might protest would be the Mus…I mean, those people who follow that one guy from that desert country.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
The only people who might protest would be the Mus…I mean, those people who follow that one guy from that desert country.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that Mary is highly regarded in the Koran but you’re right , I don’t believe that they consider Mary the “Mother of God”…
 
Jimmy_B said:
It is my understanding that Mary is highly regarded in the Koran but you’re right , I don’t believe that they consider Mary the “Mother of God”…
Click to expand...
Would not worry about Islam - Those 72 virgins have been used and abused by now
 
Protestants might. I think they would accept MOTHER OF GOD THE SON.

But saying Mother of God [the Father] would SEVERLY OFFEND them … and ALL Catholics too.

I do think Catholics should say MOTHER OF CHRIST … to clarify for non-Catholics exactly what we mean.
 
brb3 said:
Protestants might. I think they would accept MOTHER OF GOD THE SON.

But saying Mother of God [the Father] would SEVERLY OFFEND them … and ALL Catholics too.

I do think Catholics should say MOTHER OF CHRIST … to clarify for non-Catholics exactly what we mean.
Click to expand...
Christotokos? Google that term and you’ll see what that’s a huge problem. 😉

Here’s something to get ya started, yes it’s wiki… (go to the headline “Theology”)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos
 
Well, Christ is God, 100%, so I certainly say it’s proper to say that Saint Mary is God’s Mother.
 
Jimmy_B said:
the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, **the second person of the Holy Trinity

**

Yes, the Father’s eternal SON … the SECOND person of the H. Trinity. Christotokos would accurately encompass the above teaching of the Church.

The fact that Nestorius perverted the word to imply only the human [son of man], apart from Christ’s divinity does not help us today … and hinders our ability to refer to Mary as the Mother of Christ.

However, the Lord was divine and held the title Lord BEFORE he entered Mary’s womb and received his divine titles Emanuel, Christ the Lord … and the human name Jesus.
Click to expand...
 
brb3 said:
Yes, the Father’s eternal SON … the SECOND person of the H. Trinity. Christotokos would accurately encompass the above teaching of the Church.

The fact that Nestorius perverted the word to imply only the human [son of man], apart from Christ’s divinity does not help us today … and hinders our ability to refer to Mary as the Mother of Christ.

However, the Lord was divine and held the title Lord BEFORE he entered Mary’s womb and received his divine titles Emanuel, Christ the Lord … and the human name Jesus.
Click to expand...
But we shouldn’t compromise the truth so as to accomodate people’s sensitivities.

Christ was a divine person who assumed human nature.
 
brb3 said:
Protestants might. I think they would accept MOTHER OF GOD THE SON.

But saying Mother of God [the Father] would SEVERLY OFFEND them … and ALL Catholics too.
Click to expand...
Well, only the Son in the Trinity became incarnate, so yes, I can see why Protestants and Roman Catholics would be shocked. The Father didn’t become incarnate (unless you read The Shack…shivers).
brb3 said:
Yes, the Father’s eternal SON … the SECOND person of the H. Trinity. Christotokos would accurately encompass the above teaching of the Church.

The fact that Nestorius perverted the word to imply only the human [son of man], apart from Christ’s divinity does not help us today … and hinders our ability to refer to Mary as the Mother of Christ.
Click to expand...
Christotokos wasn’t really “perverted” by Nestorius, as he and his followers were the one who really created and used the word. I believe the more appropriate term Theotokos was used as early as Athanasius (I’d have to double-check though).

Christotokos focuses, as you said, entirely on the human part of Christ’s nature, which is why it hinders us from simply calling Mary the Mother of Christ. She wasn’t just the mother of a man who became the Christ, but the Incarnate Word within whom was the fullness of God. This is why Theotokos has and always should be the more appropriate terminology.
 
brb3 said:
Protestants might. I think they would accept MOTHER OF GOD THE SON.

But saying Mother of God [the Father] would SEVERLY OFFEND them … and ALL Catholics too.

I do think Catholics should say MOTHER OF CHRIST … to clarify for non-Catholics exactly what we mean.
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church

**495**Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”. In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

"He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man."
(CCC 464)
 
brb3 said:
Yes, the Father’s eternal SON … the SECOND person of the H. Trinity. Christotokos would accurately encompass the above teaching of the Church.

The fact that Nestorius perverted the word to imply only the human [son of man], apart from Christ’s divinity does not help us today … and hinders our ability to refer to Mary as the Mother of Christ.

However, the Lord was divine and held the title Lord BEFORE he entered Mary’s womb and received his divine titles Emanuel, Christ the Lord … and the human name Jesus.
Click to expand...
I have to go back and look but I believe that the quote that you attribute to me here actually came from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Here is how the Catechism defines the Holy Trinity -
253
Click to expand...
The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

Here are the Catechism search results for the word “Trinity”.

Here, below is the Gospel of John -
John 1:1-14

*In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. A man named John was sent from God. He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. *
Click to expand...
I hope this helps.
 
Jimmy_B said:
MARY
***Mother of God–***Theotókos-God-bearer-The one who gives birth to God

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**495**Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus”, Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord”. In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Luke 1:43
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?

Matthew 1:23
Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall **name **him Emmanuel," which means “God is with us.”

Luke 1:35
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy**, the Son of God**.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

**Does anybody here have a problem with St. Mary being referred to as **“Mother of God”? If so, then why?
Click to expand...
Word to our Mother!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top