Mary was just a vessel

[YADA]

Are you saying Jesus was not Human? Jesus the Baby Human needed a mother; Jesus the Creator of the universe did not need a mother.​

Of course, Jesus could have just appeared as Melchizadeck did, having not beginning or no end. God chose differently. Mary did not help create God the Son which is implied in the term ‘Mother of God’.

Melcheizadeck did ‘not’ just appear … and he had both a beginning and an end …

Jesus received His human natire from Mary …

Now how God made this happen is a mystery … Mary is absolutely the Mother of Jesus, the Theotokos [Mother of God] … Jesus is both Human and Divine … that too, is a profound Mystery … as is the Trinity …

You, make God small when you speak of sperm and eggs and carnal sexual relations …

My God is an awsome God, Who humbled Himself - taking a Human Nature, born of a woman, a Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit … Mary gave birth to the Word MAde Flesh … the same Word that was present in the World at is very creation … GOd, creator of Heaven and Earth - of all that is seen and unseen … Awsome and Powerfu - whose mysteries are both wonderful and incomprehensable …

 

[Benadam]

I couldnt believe it when I heard this tonight!!! Mary was only a vessel for the Lord, because God put him in there.
How can one not see the Jesus is God, which means Mary is the Mother of the Lord?
I guess I’m just looking for more understanding on how Mary just doesnt seem important to some.

She is the new Eve, The Ark of the New Covenant, and the Queen Mother- all scriptually based.

It’s a very utilitarian view of the human person. I think because it’s Catholic to recognize the mother of Jesus to be the mother of God folks who otherwise would never consider their own mother ‘just a vessel’ will call the mother of their Lord that if they are anti-catholic. Anti-catholicism, is after all an emotion based sentiment.

emotions without reason are innapropriate.

 

[Janet1983]

I couldnt believe it when I heard this tonight!!! Mary was only a vessel for the Lord, because God put him in there.
How can one not see the Jesus is God, which means Mary is the Mother of the Lord?
I guess I’m just looking for more understanding on how Mary just doesnt seem important to some.

She is the new Eve, The Ark of the New Covenant, and the Queen Mother- all scriptually based.

Let me put this different for you:
Mary was chosen by God as vessel to bring life in human form to the Son of God.

• she was chosen: Christ could have been born every woman who ever lived and ever will live on this planet or none, but He chose Mary! Out of all the women she was the one to be chosen!
• chosen by God: God, the one who created everything, who is almighty to do anything He pleases and when He pleases to do so. The Creator of the universe, the Great I AM, the Most High God, the Everlasting, the Lord of lords, the King of kings chose Mary to give birth to the Saviour and to raise Him up until He could begin His task! She, a part of God’s creation, was chosen by her creator and that is an honor that is so immeasurable…
• as a vessel: She carried God. To call her anything else would be taking away from His glory. He is the most glorious being in the entire universe and to be a vessel for Him is a great honor and serving Him in a very personal and beautiful way.
• to bring life in human form: Through the wonderful gift God has given women they can harbor life in their womb and be a major part in their development. She had the privilege to have the Son of God grow in her womb and to participate in Him becoming a man.
• to the Son of God: She carried the Savior! What is better for a human being?

After all I do not think that saying that she was a vessel is not such a bad thing after all and her personal worth or dignity is not harmed by that.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Call it what you think; it is what it is according to God; maybe we’ll just have to wait til Heaven for God’s answer.

HUGE cop out! Support your view or concede you’re wrong!

 

[guanophore]

I’ve pretty much answered this question as it was asked me of someone else but let me try again.​

Let me answer it this way and I hate to do so because of how it sounds: Did the Holy Spirit have sex with Mary? Did Mary’s ovum get fertilized? If the answer to both those questions is NO (and my position would be NO) then she was the vessel chosen to bring God the Son into the world. That would make her a mom to the Son of God, not the Mother.​

Even if the Holy Spirit use her ovum to make the Human Body Jesus inhabited, that would not make her the Mother of God, but the vessel of the Body God used while being Human. She did not help created God the Son, God was not created, even in the womb of Mary.

The ancients did not have the scientific reproductive knowledge that we do, so it was not explained in these terms. However, the HS did overshadow Mary (create sexual generation) and a fertilized egg of hers was planted in her womb. Her body nurtured this embryo, and brought Him to birth. This is the revelation of God to the Church. Your position sounds strangely similar to the Gnostic heresies defeated by the early church. If you are interested (and all those reading this who may actually be more genuinely inquiring) I recommend the study of the term “Theotokos” and why it was chosen for Mary.

Are you saying Jesus was not Human? Jesus the Baby Human needed a mother; Jesus the Creator of the universe did not need a mother.

Actually, it is the heretical position you are espousing that led the Church to define the Theotokos (God Bearer). The creator of the universe did not exist as Jesus prior to the incarnation. It was when the HS overshadowed Mary that He emptied Himself, and took upon Himself the form of a human. At that moment, the human person Jesus was conceived.

Of course, Jesus could have just appeared as Melchizadeck did, having not beginning or no end. God chose differently. Mary did not help create God the Son which is implied in the term ‘Mother of God’.

I agree, the term “Mother of God” does imply that Mary helped to create God the Son, and that is why this title was chosen.

There are those who actually ‘make’ the children. We call them biological parents.

This the kind of mother Mary was to Jesus.

Even so, God creates the ovum and the sperm, God is the Creator Father and NO ONE is the Creator Mother. And NO ONE created God: whether it be God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit.

The human activity of procreation is a reflection of God’s image in which we are created. Of course no one created God, and that is not what is meant by “Mother of God”. What is meant is that she is the biological mother of the incarnated second person of the Trinity, who is God.

God use Mary to form the Human Body the Son of God would need. Mary mothered Him, for sure. She was the mother of Jesus, not the** M**other of God.
-All of this is my opinion, of course.

I thank you for sharing you opinion, Dokimas. There were thousands in the Early Church who shared the same opinion with you. That is why the Church had to define the doctrine of the Mother of God.

Jesus is God. Mary is His mother. That is why we call her the Mother of God.

 

[benidict]

Galatians 2
11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
18 "For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.
20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

you are correct dokimas. we were looking at 2 different passages. i figured that must be the case and i found the same passage after my last posting. ok now we are on the same page. lol. but when this happened peter was not issuing a decree. remember also that this was due to his own prejudices at the time. yes peter was a failable human being. but when he spoke authoritatively from his office that Christ gave to him, he did not err in doctrine. also paul had other sharp disagreements with other apostles, but not once did any of them say" we cannot see eye to eye on this so we need to start our own church." that never happened.

 

[guanophore]

Oh, I fogot the other part of your question: as silly as it sound that God had sex with my mother, it’s as silly to say that Mary is the Mother of God.

I can understand why some might misunderstand it to mean that we are saying the Eternal Godhead needed or had a mother. However, that would be an error.

Can you provide scripture that Mary was the new Eve,

Yes, but the bulk of the understanding about this came later.

Where Eve chose to disobey God, Mary chose to be the “handmaid of the Lord”. She, through the birth of her Divine Son, became the Mother of all Living (meaning of the name “Eve”).

Luke parallels the journey of the Ark in his birth stories .

The Ark of the New Covenant

Remember what was contained in the Ark? When you reflect upon these items, it will become clear that Jesus is the fulfillment of them all.

and the Queen Mother.

One needs to understand the role of the Gebirah in the David Kingdom to appreciate this. I suggest a read of how Solomon responded to Bathsheba visiting him at court.

She is a queen because her Son is the King.

By scripture Mary was a vessel used by God.

Yes, in the sense that sacred vessels are consecrated to God.

One thing we know about sacred vessels is that they are never, NEVER, returned to 'daily use" after they have been consecrated.

We honor her by being that vessel but she was a sinner just like you and me.

No.

She had other children

No.

which doesn’t make her a perpetual virgin. We don’t pray to her so our prayers can be passed on to the Lord. I hope i dont sound like i am bashing Mary because those are not my intentions.

I understand that. You only have part of God’s revelation about Himself, so you can only go by the portion you have, which is incomplete.

All we have to do is go to the scriptures to read about Mary.

That is all you have to go on, freedom, because you have rejected the Word of God that was committed to the Church.

The Virgin Mary must be so proud of you for condemning other Christians because of your views on what did or didn’t happen in her bedroom with her husband or whether or not angels took her corpse to heaven.

We don’t condemn anyone for ignorance. However, these are not our personal “views”. This is the revelation of God. We have an obligation to preserve that which was committed to us by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Your analysis of what I’m saying is not complete. I have pointed out God isn’t created, thus He doesn’t have a Mother.​

You must not have seen all the things I’ve said on this issue. I’ve called Mary mother of Jesus of Nazaretn but not the Mother of God.​

But it’s not up to you, me nor any church. The correct understanding of Mary and her role is up to God.

You are correct, it is up to God. God has revealed that His Son is both fully human, and fully divine. He has two natures, but mothers are not mothers of “natures”. A mother has a child, a person. She is mother of the Person of Jesus, and this includes both the natures, the human, and the Divine, united in One Person. this is the doctrine of the hypostatic union, and this is the doctrine from which the term "mother of God’ comes.

Call it what you think; it is what it is according to God; maybe we’ll just have to wait til Heaven for God’s answer.

You may choose to wait, but we do not need to wait. We have the revelation of God in Christ. He has made it clear to us that he is both God, and man. He has made it clear that He loves His Mother, cherishes her, and honors her, just as the commandments direct.

 

[guanophore]

Some of the early apostles thought Gentile converts needed to be circumsized. Peter knew that that wasn’t correct but held his tongue.

This a very interesting revisioninst history you have here, Dokimas. You seem to have been contaminated by an anti-Catholic source. Let us examine what the record shows, shall we?

Act 11:4 But Peter gave them an account of it all in order …Act 11:18 And hearing these things they said nothing more, but gave glory to God, saying, Then to the Gentiles as to us has God given a change of heart, so that they may have life.

I wonder how they “heard these things” when Peter was so silent?

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Act 15:12 And all the assembly fell silent,

I wonder how it was that Peter could say that it was by his mouth that God made choice among all the Apotles that the Gentiles should hear the gospel? If he was 'silent" how did this happen?

Why is it that when Peter spoke, “all the assembly fell silent”? It seems to me that it was Peter’s words that caused them all to fall silent, and to give their full attention to Paul and Barnabas.

• Paul challenged this believe and thank God it’s not a requirement for becoming a child of God/Christian through the new birth.

Dokimas, you need to go back and read again. You are right, Paul did challenge the belief. He challenged it based upon what Peter had already said and done. There was no competition between them. Further, if you look at the passage, it was James that directed the letter of pastoral instruction for the believers, not Paul. You seem to be creating division among the Apostles where it did not exist.

• The original church leaders were NOT infalible. So what. God is able to deal with all our imperfections. He is perfect; His church, this side of Heaven, is imperfect because it is It’s people and It’s people are ALL fallible.

You have misunderstood the gift of infallibility. It does not prevent individuals from error, but preserves the Teaching of Jesus in the church. You are correct, God is able to deal with all our imperfections. He is able to make infallible acts come out of our fallible natures. He is perfect, and His Church is perfect, because He is her Head. The fallible members attached to her are not impeccable. Your definition of 'church" is deficient. it is not only people. The divine element of the Church is what prevents her from error.

With regard to the passage you cited from Galatians, Paul confronted Peter because he was acting hypocritically. He was not acting according to the revelation of God that had been given to him, and that he in turn had already given to the Church.

 

[benidict]

This a very interesting revisioninst history you have here, Dokimas. You seem to have been contaminated by an anti-Catholic source. Let us examine what the record shows, shall we?

Act 11:4 But Peter gave them an account of it all in order …Act 11:18 And hearing these things they said nothing more, but gave glory to God, saying, Then to the Gentiles as to us has God given a change of heart, so that they may have life.

I wonder how they “heard these things” when Peter was so silent?

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Act 15:12 And all the assembly fell silent,

I wonder how it was that Peter could say that it was by his mouth that God made choice among all the Apotles that the Gentiles should hear the gospel? If he was 'silent" how did this happen?

Why is it that when Peter spoke, “all the assembly fell silent”? It seems to me that it was Peter’s words that caused them all to fall silent, and to give their full attention to Paul and Barnabas.

Dokimas, you need to go back and read again. You are right, Paul did challenge the belief. He challenged it based upon what Peter had already said and done. There was no competition between them. Further, if you look at the passage, it was James that directed the letter of pastoral instruction for the believers, not Paul. You seem to be creating division among the Apostles where it did not exist.

You have misunderstood the gift of infallibility. It does not prevent individuals from error, but preserves the Teaching of Jesus in the church. You are correct, God is able to deal with all our imperfections. He is able to make infallible acts come out of our fallible natures. He is perfect, and His Church is perfect, because He is her Head. The fallible members attached to her are not impeccable. Your definition of 'church" is deficient. it is not only people. The divine element of the Church is what prevents her from error.

With regard to the passage you cited from Galatians, Paul confronted Peter because he was acting hypocritically. He was not acting according to the revelation of God that had been given to him, and that he in turn had already given to the Church.

CHECK AND MATE!

 

[Linda_Marie]

God exalted Mary first. The angel addressed her as ‘Kecharitomene’. This is her true name, given to her by God. But what does it mean? We do not have an equivalent word in English. We need more than several words to accurately convey the meaning,

bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm
The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)
by pfairban at the Catholic-Convert.com discussion board
<…>
In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. So, here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
<…>
“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

God granted this singular Grace to Mary. He chose her to be His Mother. God, who cannot be contained, contained Himself within her womb. He knit Himself a human body from her flesh; He united His Godhead with the flesh of Mary to form the body of Jesus. We don’t know how He did it; we just know that He did. Her flesh could not have had any sin in it nor any stain of sin, because God and sin CANNOT co-exist.

We are told that He ‘took’ flesh and that He was ‘conceived’ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Mary was no surrogate. Mary is truly the biological mother of Jesus. Jesus is both God and Man, inseparable. This is very important; not in what it says about Mary, but in what it says about Jesus. Were Jesus not fully human, His dying and rising from the dead would have had no effect for us. It was human flesh which died for us and human flesh which was raised from the dead.

Jesus is the Word made Flesh. He is both fully God and fully human. He cannot be separated. God is One. The Person to Whom Mary gave birth was God, always was God and always will be God, yet he was as fully human as you or I. This is the Mystery of the Incarnation.

 

[Benadam]

being?

After all I do not think that saying that she was a vessel is not such a bad thing after all and her personal worth or dignity is not harmed by that.

That’s reasonable as long as it isn’t a rationalization to deny that the mother of Jesus is the mother of God

 

[Benadam]

Call it what you think; it is what it is according to God; maybe we’ll just have to wait til Heaven for God’s answer.

But if you say it is according to God then you mean you don’t have to wait just those who disagree with you and God, You do understand that you kinda sorta said that relative to us that you are God?

 

[Reuben_J]

Your analysis of what I’m saying is not complete. I have pointed out God isn’t created, thus He doesn’t have a Mother.

I am sorry to say this but by now you must have realized that this is one big ****.

You have narrowed the criteria for motherhood only if the child is formed of her ovum and the father’s sperm. This is utterly nonsensical and have been explained. You even admit that we can have a father even by adoption.

There is nothing wrong to say Mary is the Mother of God simply because Jesus is God. It is only wrong to say that if you separate Jesus the divine from Jesus the man. I did not see you address that though.

 

[Reuben_J]

You must not have seen all the things I’ve said on this issue. I’ve called Mary mother of Jesus of Nazaretn but not the Mother of God.​

But it’s not up to you, me nor any church. The correct understanding of Mary and her role is up to God.

Are you now saying that **Jesus, the Lamb of God who sits on the Throne **denies that Mary is ever His Mother? If so when did he say this? How is that you have this revelation and we do not?

 

[Good_Fella]

Let me put this different for you:
Mary was chosen by God as a vessel to bring life in human form to the Son of God.

Mary was predestined from all eternity to be the Mother of God. She had found favour with God before the angel Gabriel greeted her (Lk 1:30). If there had been a woman holier than Mary, then God would have chosen her and rejected Mary. Since Mary had grown in the fulness of the first plenitude of grace she was endowed with upon her immaculate conception and had never lost her justification before God at any moment in her life on the occasion of sin, the angel appeared to her and confirmed her worthiness to be the mother of our Lord (Lk 1:43). With profound reverence the angel greeted her:

And coming in he said, “Hail, favored one.”
Luke 1, 28

eiselthon “chaire kecharitomene”

The angel Gabriel greets Mary with a salutation which was specially reserved for royal personages. This same salutation is sarcastically used by the Roman soldiers who had mocked Jesus.

And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they knelt down before him and mocked him saying, “Hail, king of the Jews.”
Matthew 27, 29

plexantes stephanon akanthon epekethan kephales kalamon dexia gonupetes antes emprosthen enepaixan legontes “chaire basileu ioudaion”

The angel Gabriel saluted Mary in recognition of her predestined royalty. Scripture and Tradition affirm that Mary is the Queen Mother (Gebirah) of our Lord and King Jesus Christ (Lk 1: 31-33; 1 Kgs 2:19; Ps 45:9). Mary wasn’t chosen to serve as a type of incubator. :nope:

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

…

• chosen by God: God, the one who created everything, who is almighty to do anything He pleases and when He pleases to do so.

In his sovereingty and majesty God wills to respect and honour human free will. Our Creator is a God of love - not a God of power and might who lacks wisdom and righteousness. In his infinite goodness, God couldn’t possibly violate the free will of those who were created in his image purely out of love to have a share in the divine life.

What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?
Yet you have made them little less than a God, crowned them with glory and honor.
Psalm 8, 5-6

• as a vessel: She carried God. To call her anything else would be taking away from His glory. He is the most glorious being in the entire universe and to be a vessel for Him is a great honor and serving Him in a very personal and beautiful way.
• to bring life in human form: Through the wonderful gift God has given women they can harbor life in their womb and be a major part in their development.

And Mary said, “Let it be done to me according to your word.”
*Luke 1, 38 *

Mary became the mother of our Lord by her free consent to do God’s will. The Incarnation would not have happened unless Mary conformed her will entirely to God’s. God efficaciously willed and infallibly foresaw Mary’s consent, so He chose her. He granted her the efficacious grace which would move her to freely and meritoriously accept the call to be the mother of His Only-begotten Son. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us that Mary’s fiat belonged entirely to God as First Cause (just as our free and meritorious acts of faith do) and entirely to Mary as secondary cause. “Since the will of God is supremely efficacious it follows that not only do the things that God wills efficaciously happen, but they happen in the way in which He wills. But it is His will that some things should happen by necessity and others freely” [ST Ia; q.19, a. 8].* In other words, Mary was no more an animate vessel than she was a type of inanimate fertile acorn. God willed that he would become incarnate by Mary’s free consent.

• Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Mother of the Saviour, pp. 158-159: Tan Books

She had the privilege to have the Son of God grow in her womb and to participate in Him becoming a man.

“And your own soul a sword shall pierce, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Luke 2, 35

As a devout Jew, Mary was aware of the Messianic prophecies about Jesus, so when she uttered her fiat she accepted for herself and for her Son all the sufferings which the redemption would involve. She united herself to Jesus in association with him in the redemptive Incarnation as only a perfect and loving mother could - not a mere vessel. Mary was called to participate in the divine work of salvation. She wasn’t used merely to provide flesh and blood. God can turn a stone into a son of Abraham. Scripture and Tradition affirm that Mary is the New Eve in consequence of her divine maternity.

After all I do not think that saying that she was a vessel is not such a bad thing after all and her personal worth or dignity is not harmed by that.

Where is the dignity in being deprived of our free will and thus stripped of our glory and honour, being created in the image of God?

PAX :harp:

 

[kalt]

I wonder how the humble Virgin from Nazareth would react if she knew that followers of her Son were being contentious and combative over whether or not she had ever sinned or had relations with her husband or whether or not her body was taken to heaven. I don’t think the Mary of the Bible would care much for matters of her personal life being a cause of division amongst Christians. I will not disown a Christian for having his or her own sincere beliefs about the Blessed Virgin Mary. It would be nice if Rome extended the same charity towards others instead of labeling dissenters as heretics. I can’t imagine that pleases the Mother of the Lord.

I’m OK. You’re OK.

I can’t believe how many times that stupid 70’s line comes to mind when I read non-Catholic Christians on Christian charity.

I agree that we shouldn’t beat up people about not believing the truth about Mary, but to go so far as to say that the Church shouldn’t label heretical teachings for what they are–no go. “Rome” is the teaching authority. “Rome” has the responisibility and right to teach the truth.

If someone wants to disbelieve the truth that Rome teaches, that’s up to him. But Rome will always teach the truth and call heretical what is heretical.

 

[kalt]

Your analysis of what I’m saying is not complete. I have pointed out God isn’t created, thus He doesn’t have a Mother.​

You must not have seen all the things I’ve said on this issue. I’ve called Mary mother of Jesus of Nazaretn but not the Mother of God.​

But it’s not up to you, me nor any church. The correct understanding of Mary and her role is up to God.

So when was Jesus man and not God? If she is the mother of only the man there must be a time when Jesus is man and not God. Can Jesus be both and yet only one of the two? We know that Jesus was a real man. He was a real man, so he was a person. Can a person be only partly man? Can a man, who is a person, be anything less than 100% a person? Can God ever be anything less than 100% divine? If Jesus is fully man and fully God, what division can be made to say that Mary is mother to only a part?

 

[Newbie2]

Call it what you think; it is what it is according to God; maybe we’ll just have to wait til Heaven for God’s answer.

Actually, I was looking for your answer, or at least a clarification. Your POV seems to separate the divine and human natures of Christ, no?

If you don’t have an answer, fine, but isn’t “let’s wait for God’s answer in heaven” sort of a cop out answer?