MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD ... WHY IS THIS TITLE AT ALL CONTROVERSIAL???

[The_Reginator]

Hello, for the first time in a long while.

Our Lady has many titles, but the one that seems the most basic to me is the topic of my linked blog post: "Mary, the Mother of God".
See blog post HERE.
If we do not acknowledge Mary to be the Mother of God we are not acknowledging her Son, Jesus Christ, as being both God and Man.
Do some non-Catholics REALLY believe that Catholics think that Mary is the mother of the Most Holy Trinity????

(As a convert, I pray that I may learn to love Our Mother just as Our Lord Jesus Christ loves her. After 28 years as a Catholic I still haven't made a great effort to love her although I do (try to) pray a daily Rosary.)

Thoughts anyone?

- Reg

+
JMJ

 

[DaveBj]

From my former status as a serious Protestant, I would respond that part of the problem is that the phrase "Mother of XXX" carries the connotation that before XXX was conceived in the womb, he did not exist. Many Protestants attach that meaning to the phrase "Mother of God," however misguidedly, and it is hard to overcome. Personally, I think that if the Church had stuck with the original Greek term "Theotokos" ("God-bearer"), then a lot of this confusion could have been avoided.

Dxx

 

[HomeschoolDad]

From my former status as a serious Protestant, I would respond that part of the problem is that the phrase "Mother of XXX" carries the connotation that before XXX was conceived in the womb, he did not exist. Many Protestants attach that meaning to the phrase "Mother of God," however misguidedly, and it is hard to overcome. Personally, I think that if the Church had stuck with the original Greek term "Theotokos" ("God-bearer"), then a lot of this confusion could have been avoided.

Dxx

That's exactly what it is. In the mind of an English-speaking Protestant, who is very often convinced that we confer godlike status upon Mary, it sounds as though we are saying "Mary created God", making her into some kind of primordial demiurge.

We need to be able to demonstrate to such folks that devotion to Mary goes back to the beginnings of the Church, even if every Marian doctrine and belief isn't explicitly spelled out in the Bible.

 

[po18guy]

Sam Shamoun explains clearly on a daily basis. Does not soften hardened hearts. The worst are pathological, even psychopathic. To change to "God-bearer" now would only fan the flames of judgment, anger and hatred.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Sam Shamoun explains clearly on a daily basis. Does not soften hardened hearts. The worst are pathological, even psychopathic. To change to "God-bearer" now would only fan the flames of judgment, anger and hatred.

I wouldn't say that Protestants who are opposed to Marian devotion have "hardened hearts", nor that they are pathological or psychopathic. They are just very, very firm in the idea that there is only one God, in three Persons (not sure how elaborated that Trinitarian theology is among the more simplistic of fundamentalists), and that anything that even hints at idolatry or polytheism (as they see it) is to be shunned and resisted. They see us rendering hyperdulia to Our Lady, singing her praises, seeking her intercession, and they draw the conclusion that we worship her as a de facto goddess. This agitates them, and seeing it through their eyes, I can understand entirely. A very blunt, non-nuanced (as they see it) title such as "Mother of God" is only all the more outrageous to them.

Look at it this way, when we see Hindus worshipping, venerating, honoring, whatever, entities such as Krishna, or Vishnu, or Ganesh, or Shiva, or whatever, do we attempt to see any distinctions between this one or that, how much this god is honored as opposed to that one, no, we just see it as "worshipping gods". A scholar of Hinduism might draw distinctions, but ordinary non-Hindus typically would not.

I'm not suggesting that the Church should drop the appelation Mater Dei, or any other title attributed to Mary, just telling you how they think, having been raised among them, and being intimately familiar with how they view the world in general and faith in particular.

 

[po18guy]

On YouTube they are. OCD level anger and hatred. Why? Near-zero moderation.
It is all a product of the ego. Protestantism is founded on the human ego. It exploits the bible, and pays lip service to Christ, but the foundation is the sand of the human ego. Look at its genesis: three rebellious men quickly united and almost quickly separated.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

On YouTube they are. OCD level anger and hatred. Why? Near-zero moderation.
It is all a product of the ego. Protestantism is founded on the human ego. It exploits the bible, and pays lip service to Christ, but the foundation is the sand of the human ego. Look at its genesis: three rebellious men quickly united and almost quickly separated.

I don't keep up with those kinds of Protestants. Just breaking it down into the simplest possible explanation, typical Protestants:

• Start with the assumption that the Bible (66 books, not 72) is the sole rule of faith.
• May have some notional concept of a historical Church, but basically leap from some kind of romanticized "early Christians" to the Reformation.
• Have a very minimalistic creed, if it can be called that; the "statement of faith" that can be found on many congregations' websites hits the high points.
• Assert that there is no mediator between God and man than Jesus Christ.
• Make the broad assumption that anyone who has "accepted Christ as Lord and personal Savior" goes straight to heaven when they die.

There's no room for Our Lady in any of this, except as the woman --- a holy woman, to be sure --- who consented to bear the Savior.

 

[po18guy]

They cherry pick verses out of context and quote-mine the fathers.
Yet, cherry-picking leads only to the pits and quote mining yields only fool's gold.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

They cherry pick verses out of context and quote-mine the fathers.
Yet, cherry-picking leads only to the pits and quote mining yields only fool's gold.

Protestantism is a big tent. Your lay preacher up the head of a holler (i.e., hollow) in deepest Appalachia may not even be aware that there is such a thing as "the fathers of the Church". And if you will ever notice, Protestant sermons tend just to home in on individual verses --- there really isn't that much Scripture read at length, it's all just taking verses and talking about them on and on.

 

[po18guy]

Protestantism is a big tent. Your lay preacher up the head of a holler (i.e., hollow) in deepest Appalachia may not even be aware that there is such a thing as "the fathers of the Church". And if you will ever notice, Protestant sermons tend just to home in on individual verses --- there really isn't that much Scripture read at length, it's all just taking verses and talking about them on and on.

There are currently 7 billion potential Protestant popes living on earth. I am no one, but I have yet to encounter a bible believer who actually knows even the 66 books they have.They lean on 10-12 verses as proof texts and the rest is filler. Sadly, those who reject baptism are only fanboys, poseurs.

 

[Saved2Serve]

From my former status as a serious Protestant, I would respond that part of the problem is that the phrase "Mother of XXX" carries the connotation that before XXX was conceived in the womb, he did not exist. Many Protestants attach that meaning to the phrase "Mother of God," however misguidedly, and it is hard to overcome. Personally, I think that if the Church had stuck with the original Greek term "Theotokos" ("God-bearer"), then a lot of this confusion could have been avoided.

Dxx

Yes, that is true. The the original Greek term “Theotokos” (”God-bearer”) does not carry the ontological inference that Mother of God does. Which, will technically true as being the “mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) who created her, meaning by being the vessel for His incarnation and caretaker in nurture, yet the uncritical use of the term conveys more than that, esp. as part of the hyper-exaltation by Catholics of the holy, virtuous, sacrificial Mary far above that which is written (contra 1 Co. 4:6).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Yes, that is true. The the original Greek term “Theotokos” (”God-bearer”) does not carry the ontological inference that Mother of God does. Which, will technically true as being the “mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) who created her, meaning by being the vessel for His incarnation and caretaker in nurture, yet the uncritical use of the term conveys more than that, esp. as part of the hyper-exaltation by Catholics of the holy, virtuous, sacrificial Mary far above that which is written (contra 1 Co. 4:6).

And that "ontological inference" would be wrong. No Catholic thinks that Mary predated God or created Him.

Is Christ God? Certainly.

And is Mary His mother? Certainly.

It's no more complicated than that.

 

[Saved2Serve]

And that "ontological inference" would be wrong. No Catholic thinks that Mary predated God or created Him.

Is Christ God? Certainly.

And is Mary His mother? Certainly.

It's no more complicated than that.

Did God create Mary? Certainly. Is Christ God? Certainly. Was Christ incarnated thru Mary? Certainly. Did Mary contribute anything to his Divinity? Certainly not. Thus she is the mother of the incarnated Christ, God manifest in the flesh, being a holy instrument of God, like Israel. "of whom as concerning the flesh [distinction made] Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. "(Romans 9:5).

That Scriptural truth is is also part of Catholic theology, but as clearly stated, it is the uncritical the uncritical use of the term as part of the hyper-exaltation of Mary* by Catholics far above that which is written (contra 1 Co. 4:6).

I think what Ratzinger said of the title “Co-redemptrix” should apply here also, even if he did not do so himself:

“the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.”

“Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language.” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306)


*Such as,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by, • who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin," • and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father," • and whose power now "is all but unlimited," • for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God," • "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven," • so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse." • and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus," • for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation," • Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose," • and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven," • including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels," • whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests," • and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess," • and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation. (Sources)