Mary Mother of God?

[nlm]

Since God existed from before creation and Mary gave birth to Jesus 2000 years ago should she not be Mother of Jesus? nlm

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Council of Ephesus, Mr. Nestorius…

 

[thistle]

Since God existed from before creation and Mary gave birth to Jesus 2000 years ago should she not be Mother of Jesus? nlm

For a start Jesus IS God or is that something you do not believe?

I notice you are a Protestant. Even the founders of Protestantism declared in writing that Mary is Mother of God.

Luther:

“. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

Zwingili:

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’

Bullinger:

‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’

Calvin:

“Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.”

 

[adriancombe]

Since God existed from before creation and Mary gave birth to Jesus 2000 years ago should she not be Mother of Jesus? nlm

This is non sequitur. There is nothing about motherhood that determines the time of inception, nor is there anything about preexistent that precludes motherhood.

In fact, the Bible states we all preexist our bodies - Jeremiah 1:5 - “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” So, your argument would make us all motherless and prove too much.

-Adrian

 

[Volodymyr_988]

In fact, the Bible states we all preexist our bodies - Jeremiah 1:5 - “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” So, your argument would make us all motherless and prove too much.

-Adrian

That is a heresy. When Scripture says this, it means that God knew in His infinite mind who and what you were going to be. God creates your soul at conception ex nihilio.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Since God existed from before creation and Mary gave birth to Jesus 2000 years ago should she not be Mother of Jesus? nlm

When we say that Mary is the Mother of God, it is an affirmation that Jesus Himself is God.

Jesus is one Divine Person with two nature. He’s not two people with two natures, but one person and his one Person is Divine. Since Jesus is God; and since Mary is His Mother, Mary is therefore the mother of God.

When we say she is the mother of God we do not mean that she is the mother of the Trinity. Mary is not the mother of God the Father or the Holy Ghost; she is only the mother of Jesus; but since Jesus is God, it makes Mary the mother of God.

To deny that Mary is the mother of God one would have to argue that 1.) she is either not the mothef of Jesus, or that 2.) Jesus is not God. Since both of these propositions are false, it is correct to say that Mary is the mother of God.

 

[adriancombe]

That is a heresy. When Scripture says this, it means that God knew in His infinite mind who and what you were going to be. God creates your soul at conception ex nihilio.

If it is heresy, please document this. Don’t simply make unsupported assertions, especially when accusing someone of heresy.

As far a I know the Church has never defined when a soul is created or infused.

-Adrian

 

[thistle]

If it is heresy, please document this. Don’t simply make unsupported assertions, especially when accusing someone of heresy.

As far a I know the Church has never defined when a soul is created or infused.

-Adrian

You are wrong.

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

 

[Yours_Truly]

You are wrong.

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

I think the point Adrian was making is that the soul could pre-exist the body in such a way that Mary could have been the Mother of the Trinity, since her soul was not necessarily created 2000 years ago, but only her body.

The pre-existence of the soul was a teaching of Origen and was condemned at the second Council of Constantinople in the 6th century.

The soul is created at or just after the conception, not before. Therefore, the soul does not pre-exist the body.

 

[adriancombe]

You are wrong.

CCC 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

You are making my point for me. It does not say when the soul is created. It merely states what you and I already agree on - that God creates the soul, not the parents, and that the soul has no end. The starting point is not specified.

-Adrian

 

[adriancombe]

I think the point Adrian was making is that the soul could pre-exist the body in such a way that Mary could have been the Mother of the Trinity, since her soul was not necessarily created 2000 years ago, but only her body.

The pre-existence of the soul was a teaching of Origen and was condemned at the second Council of Constantinople in the 6th century.

The soul is created at or just after the conception, not before. Therefore, the soul does not pre-exist the body.

No, I definitely was not implying spiritual maternity pre-conception. I was using a reductio ad absurdum approach.

 

[adriancombe]

I think the point Adrian was making is that the soul could pre-exist the body in such a way that Mary could have been the Mother of the Trinity, since her soul was not necessarily created 2000 years ago, but only her body.

The pre-existence of the soul was a teaching of Origen and was condemned at the second Council of Constantinople in the 6th century.

The soul is created at or just after the conception, not before. Therefore, the soul does not pre-exist the body.

Several points regarding the 2nd Council of Constantinople. (catholicity.com/encyclopedia/c/constantinople,second_council_of.html )

The only way the Council was able to be held at all was because they locked up the Pope (Vigilius). The only reason he finally endorsed the Council was the Greeks would not let him go back to Rome until/unless he signed on the dotted line. We do not have the original text of the Council at all, which was in Greek. The only thing we have is a Latin translation, which was probably the translation created for the Pope so he would sign it! From this last fact, I infer that

1. Whoever did the translation may have had a bias.
2. No one really knows where we got this translation from, which is why the word “probably” is used when trying to explain its origin.

I also not that the text actually reads:

“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.”

This is at best an ambiguous statement from a dubious translation, but as I read it, it condemns anyone who holds BOTH positions, not one or the other. The emphasis, if there is one, appears to be on the apokatastasis. The pre-existence is merely part of the vehicle which Origen apparently used to get to the ‘restoration’. If you read the passage in question ( ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.iii.viii.html ) it is convoluted and complicated to our way of thinking. It has a lot of ideas we would probably all disagree with.

But, it does not specify WHEN the soul is created. And neither does the Second Council of Constantinople! Which is what I was asking for, and which I already know has not been defined. But, if you do manage to dig it up somewhere let me know.

-Adrian

 

[adriancombe]

I think the point Adrian was making is that the soul could pre-exist the body in such a way that Mary could have been the Mother of the Trinity, since her soul was not necessarily created 2000 years ago, but only her body.

The pre-existence of the soul was a teaching of Origen and was condemned at the second Council of Constantinople in the 6th century.

The soul is created at or just after the conception, not before. Therefore, the soul does not pre-exist the body.

We are missing the point of my argument by going so far in the weeds with the time frame of the creation of the soul business. The point is, if nlm does not accept the Theotokos, s/he cannot logically accept Nicea, and so subsequent Councils are off the table so to speak. We have to assume nlm is sola scriptura unless otherwise stated, and sola scriptura does not have much to say about the precise moment of the infusion of the soul, bur, when it does (Jer 1:5) it sure looks like there is basis for the position that the soul might have existed before the body. I am not saying how long before, much less starting the first national church of Origen. All I am saying is the pre-existence argument of nlm is subject to reductio ad absurdum within the sola scriptura framework.

-Adrian

 

[AliciaCL]

This phrase derives from Elizabeth commenting to Mary that she is surprised that the mother of our Lord comes to visit her. Mother of our Lord, mother of God. Non-Catholics have gotten wrapped around the axel on this for hundreds of years. Think of it as HUMAN mother of God, like the you understood subject when there is a stand alone verb command saying Go or Eat or whatever. Just insert the understood HUMAN before mother of God and that’s what has always been meant – totally non-objectionable to non Catholics. Is that a forbidden double negative??