Mary

[Jimmy_B]

I dont really know if I would recognize Mary as the Mother of God, seeing as shes not referred to as that in Scripture. Yes she is the Mother of Jesus and yes Jesus is God, but God was around for a lot longer than Mary. God is the Father of Mary so I contend that its impossible for her to be the Mother of God… .

Hello NewPerspective, thank you for your post.

She is “referred to as that in Scripture”!

For those here who get so confused about Catholic doctrine, I suggest you leave the religion of that “one guy” who told you what to believe about Catholics and come home to the real "One Guy”, Christ and his church on earth, the Roman Catholic Church.

This is good example of why context and a more complete understanding of the Bible and Christian history are so necessary.

Any religion were one’s entire faith is based on a handful of bible verses and the rest on what someone else tells them, is going to be confusing.

I do not know if by definition, one is “Christian” if he/she doesn’t believe in:

1. The Holy Trinity, Three Persons One God. And
2. Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

I believe that is why in early church history, prior to Protestantism, people were charge with heresy.

If Jesus was fully human and fully divine (which He was), then Mary was the mother of God (Jesus, Second Person of God).

Remember, belief in the Trinity, Three Persons, One God, allows Mary to be the mother of God (Jesus) and not the mother of the Holy Spirit or mother of God in heaven. (Who obviously created her and therefore precedes her).

Note: God in the form of the Holy Trinity, is inseparable, this is the mystery.

LUKE 1:41-43

41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,42 cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.43 And how does this happen to me, that the **mother of my Lord **

should come to me? (Luke (NAB) 1)

One does not have to be a Roman Catholic to believe that Mary is the mother of God (Jesus); it can be found in the Gospels. As mentioned earlier in this discussion, Mary is described as the “mother of my Lord” by Elisabeth.

One does not have to be a Roman Catholic to believe that Mary is the mother of God but one does have to agree with the Gospels and believe in the Holy Trinity to be a “Christian”. This is not only Roman Catholic Doctrine, it is in the Bible!

Keep Posting…

 

[Jimmy_B]

I was just wondering, how can someone who claims to be a “Christian” not believe that Jesus was fully human and fully divine?

 

[paarsurrey]

The God of the Muslim religion is NOT the God of all creation.

Hi

I think that GodAllahYHWH who created Hindus, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Zoroatrians etc, the same God created Muslims.

[59:22] If We had sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst, certainly, have seen it humbled and rent asunder for fear of Allah . And these are similitudes that We set forth for mankind that they may reflect. **
[59:23] He is Allah and there is no god beside Him, the Knower of the unseen and the seen. He is the Gracious, the Merciful.**
[59:24] He is Allah and there is no god beside Him, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of peace, the Bestower of security, the Protector, the Mighty, the Subduer, the Exalted. Holy is Allah, far above that which they associate with Him**.
[59:25] He is Allah, the creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. **His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=59&verse=20

Thanks

 

[rpp]

Hi

I think that GodAllahYHWH who created Hindus, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Zoroatrians etc, the same God created Muslims.

[59:22] If We had sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst, certainly, have seen it humbled and rent asunder for fear of Allah . And these are similitudes that We set forth for mankind that they may reflect. **
[59:23] He is Allah and there is no god beside Him, the Knower of the unseen and the seen. He is the Gracious, the Merciful.**
[59:24] He is Allah and there is no god beside Him, the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of peace, the Bestower of security, the Protector, the Mighty, the Subduer, the Exalted. Holy is Allah, far above that which they associate with Him**.
[59:25] He is Allah, the creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. **His are the most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Him, and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=59&verse=20

Thanks

Off topic.

If you want to discuss whether God and the Muslim concept of Allah are the same, please start your own thread in the Non-Catholic Religions area.

 

[mercygate]

I dont really know if I would recognize Mary as the Mother of God, seeing as shes not referred to as that in Scripture. Yes she is the Mother of Jesus and yes Jesus is God, but God was around for a lot longer than Mary. God is the Father of Mary so I contend that its impossible for her to be the Mother of God. God had these plans before the foundation of the Earth. But I do recognize her as an awesome woman of God, a very special vessel used by God, and a radical example of how we should follow Jesus. The CC puts Mary above the average man correct? And yes she is blessed amongst women, but i think its obvious that shes blessed, she was chosen to be the vessel that God came into the world through as Jesus. Thats a blessing in itself, even if it stopped there but I do believe that great is Mary’s reward for both what God chose her to do and what she did willingly as it relates to her love and close following of Christ. I dont know any of this im just speculating with the help of Scripture, so dont take this as im attacking Mary or saying shes not special, cuz I know she is. I just dont know that I would call her the Mother of GOD being that He is her Father and that she was sinless for the rest of days. I just want to see it in scripture, if someone can show me some definitive proof in The Word, i would be more than happy to believe that. Thanks Guys.

How about taking this up with a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian or Congregationalist. They do not carry the stigma of catholicism and they ALL believe that Mary is “Mother of God.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

I was just wondering, how can someone who claims to be a “Christian” not believe that Jesus was fully human and fully divine?

You know I also wonder that as well.

 

[Della]

How about taking this up with a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian or Congregationalist. They do not carry the stigma of catholicism and they ALL believe that Mary is “Mother of God.”

I hate to throw cold water on your suggestion, but even Episcopalians balk at using the term “Mother of God” and prefer to call Mary “the mother of Our Lord” and Baptists refer to her merely as “the mother of Jesus”, this latter with the understanding that Jesus was fully human and fully divine–most without any knowledge of how that belief came about.

For our OP, many of our Protestant brethren hold to beliefs they think are obviously supported by Scripture when in fact they were hammered out in Church councils, often after the blood of martyrs had borne witnessed to the truth, when the Bible alone couldn’t settle such important doctrinal issues.

 

[mercygate]

I hate to throw cold water on your suggestion, but even Episcopalians balk at using the term “Mother of God” and prefer to call Mary “the mother of Our Lord” and Baptists refer to her merely as “the mother of Jesus”, this latter with the understanding that Jesus was fully human and fully divine–most without any knowledge of how that belief came about.

For our OP, many of our Protestant brethren hold to beliefs they think are obviously supported by Scripture when in fact they were hammered out in Church councils, often after the blood of martyrs had borne witnessed to the truth, when the Bible alone couldn’t settle such important doctrinal issues.

I hear what you are saying but technically, Episcopalians hold to the first four ecumenical councils. Ergo: Mother of God (3rd council, Ephesus).

The best explanation I have ever heard of the title comes from the Presbyterian, Dr. R. C. Sproul.

 

[Della]

I hear what you are saying but technically, Episcopalians hold to the first four ecumenical councils. Ergo: Mother of God (3rd council, Ephesus).

Yes they do, but in practice they play down the title “Mother of God.” I never heard that term used when I was Episcopalian, and the only time Mary was mentioned was at Christmas. What I’m saying is–it wasn’t something they promoted in their teachings.

The best explanation I have ever heard of the title comes from the Presbyterian, Dr. R. C. Sproul.

I’d like to read that, too. Do you have a source/link? I think it’d be great for our Protestant brethren to read something like that from “one of their own” on the subject, as well.

 

[ricko]

I dont really know if I would recognize Mary as the Mother of God, seeing as shes not referred to as that in Scripture. Yes she is the Mother of Jesus and yes Jesus is God, but God was around for a lot longer than Mary. God is the Father of Mary so I contend that its impossible for her to be the Mother of God. God had these plans before the foundation of the Earth. But I do recognize her as an awesome woman of God, a very special vessel used by God, and a radical example of how we should follow Jesus. The CC puts Mary above the average man correct? And yes she is blessed amongst women, but i think its obvious that shes blessed, she was chosen to be the vessel that God came into the world through as Jesus. Thats a blessing in itself, even if it stopped there but I do believe that great is Mary’s reward for both what God chose her to do and what she did willingly as it relates to her love and close following of Christ. I dont know any of this im just speculating with the help of Scripture, so dont take this as im attacking Mary or saying shes not special, cuz I know she is. I just dont know that I would call her the Mother of GOD being that He is her Father and that she was sinless for the rest of days. I just want to see it in scripture, if someone can show me some definitive proof in The Word, i would be more than happy to believe that. Thanks Guys.

Remember, all that is in the bible is true but not all truth is in the bible. The Catholic Church has many documents not included in the bible that are historical and we also have Tradition. By the way, the God of Christians and the God of Islam are one and the same.

 

[jmcrae]

I think it needs to be reiterated (yet again) that mothers do not create their children. God creates children, man and woman come together to conceive them, and then the mother bears them.

Mary bore Jesus, so she is His mother. Jesus is God, so Mary is the mother of God. He is physically made of her DNA.

 

[St_Aloysius]

I hate to throw cold water on your suggestion, but even Episcopalians balk at using the term “Mother of God” and prefer to call Mary “the mother of Our Lord” and Baptists refer to her merely as “the mother of Jesus”, this latter with the understanding that Jesus was fully human and fully divine–most without any knowledge of how that belief came about.

The latter is definitely true. Although at my old Baptist church, I liked to refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” just to scare some people. But hey, that’s just me. lol

 

[po18guy]

While learning to find my way, i never could picture Mary. Knowingly i prayed, contemplated and after many years i began to know Mary. Mary became real to me.

It was only Mary: who was present and necessary at the Annunciation; whose words of obedience allowed the Holy Spirit to act; who visited Elizabeth while she carried John Baptist in her aged womb; who was at the Presentation on the eighth day (even though a normal woman would have been considered “unclean” under the Mosaic law and excluded from the Temple); who was directly addressed by Simeon; who was present at the wedding feast in Cana; whose words of obedience (“Do whatever he tells you”) began Christ’s public ministry; who remained with Christ throughout His teaching; who was not scattered when the Shepherd was struck; who was present at the crucifixion; who Christ Himself, in His last physical act on earth before dying (John 19:26-27), gave to the beloved disciple (John) as his mother; and who was present when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit. If all of this, as well as all that I have missed, is not evidence of her very special role in God’s final Covenant with man, what is?

Would the pure and perfect God choose sin, which He hates, to carry His Covenant to us?

Through Eve’s disobedience, mankind was lost to sin. Through Mary’s obedience, mankind was restored to God. No normal woman would have been filled with grace or chosenby God for this role. If she had sin, she would not have been full of grace.

The evidence abounds, but only if you look for it. Non-Catholics are generally not taught to look for this, but it’s there in scripture.

 

[dacoobob]

Would the pure and perfect God choose sin, which He hates, to carry His Covenant to us?

I see this argument a lot. The trouble is that it relies on inductive reasoning, rather than deductive reasoning. Besides, the pure and perfect God chose sinful Moses to carry His Covenant to Israel (literally to carry it in the case of the tablets with the commandments). If you’re Catholic, you believe that he chooses sinful popes, bishops, priests, and deacons to carry out His new Covenant today. I don’t think this particular argument holds water.

 

[po18guy]

I see this argument a lot. The trouble is that it relies on inductive reasoning, rather than deductive reasoning. Besides, the pure and perfect God chose sinful Moses to carry His Covenant to Israel (literally to carry it in the case of the tablets with the commandments). If you’re Catholic, you believe that he chooses sinful popes, bishops, priests, and deacons to carry out His new Covenant today. I don’t think this particular argument holds water.

Moses was top in my mind, but this is the final covenant in flesh and blood-not stone. Moses bore the stone tablet covenant, not the Son. God could have created a body for Christ out of thin air, but did not. Since He did not, wouldn’t He choose to be Mary’s savior by shielding her from sin?

I find it odd that so many separated Christians must detract from Mary, and even Peter-not in a search for truth, but rather to distinguish themselves. It seems to me that all Christians would be fuller in their faith if they honored all of God’s choices and accomplishments.

Christ’s peace.

 

[mercygate]

Yes they do, but in practice they play down the title “Mother of God.” I never heard that term used when I was Episcopalian, and the only time Mary was mentioned was at Christmas. What I’m saying is–it wasn’t something they promoted in their teachings.

I’d like to read that, too. Do you have a source/link? I think it’d be great for our Protestant brethren to read something like that from “one of their own” on the subject, as well.

Sproul did it in a run-up to Christmas on his radio show a few years ago. He might have a print version available on his web site, Ligonier Ministries.

 

[dacoobob]

"po18guy:

Moses was top in my mind, but this is the final covenant in flesh and blood-not stone. Moses bore the stone tablet covenant, not the Son. God could have created a body for Christ out of thin air, but did not. Since He did not, wouldn’t He choose to be Mary’s savior by shielding her from sin?

Ok, but again the argument relies on us presuming to be able to say what God of course would have done. That makes me nervous. And how about my second point-- why wouldn’t He similarly preserve every priest, who after all physically carry and administer the true body and blood of Christ? Not to mention every parishioner who receives Him in their bodies every mass… This is the problem I have with the “argument from ‘well, wouldn’t He?’” As I said I think there are much better arguments for the Immaculate Conception.

I find it odd that so many separated Christians must detract from Mary, and even Peter-not in a search for truth, but rather to distinguish themselves. It seems to me that all Christians would be fuller in their faith if they honored all of God’s choices and accomplishments.

Christ’s peace.

I really don’t think they do it to distinguish themselves (at least most of them)… I think it’s a genuine desire to err on the side of caution with respect to idolatry. Yes, the Church doesn’t technically teach Mary- (or saint-) worship, or superstition, but you must admit that in popular practice the line often tends get pretty blurry. Probably the modern Protestant attitude to Mary is an overreaction in the other direction, but please don’t think it’s motivated by spite or pique (in the vast majority of cases).

 

[po18guy]

Ok, but again the argument relies on us presuming to be able to say what God of course would have done. That makes me nervous.

The Church teaches that is precisely what God did in Mary’s case. Why? There was to be only one woman in the course of eternity destined to give God a human nature. Did He send Gabriel to a run-of-the-mill girl? No. Since Mary was young, what on earth could she have accomplished as a teenager to be so addressed by the Angel Gabriel? No one else in scripture was so addressed - especially not by Gabriel, who stands in God’s presence. Since nothing is written about Mary prior to the annunciation, we firmly believe that she was “highly favored” by God, Who preserved her from sin. Consider the contrast from scripture:

Psalm 30:7 (of David) O LORD, when you favored me, you made my mountain stand firm;

Luke 1:28
The angel went to her (Mary) and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Luke 1:43 (Elizabeth) But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

King David, and Elizabeth, by their own reckoning, were “favored”. Only Mary was “highly favored”, spoken by the Angel of the Lord, not by her own reckoning. Yet, we absolutely believe that Mary was created, 100% human, just as you or I - only that God, her Savior, preserved her from sin because of the unique role He had for her.

Her messenger and God’s mission came directly from the Throne of the Most High God. He alone gave her a personal mission, one requiring her to honor Him and in turn be honored, (Luke 1:48) to give human nature to God at the risk of her own flesh. See the parallel with Christ Himself here? Both Adam and Eve were conceived without sin, and both were created to be the major part of God’s plan, the only part of creation which could return the Father’s love. It is consistent that God would act in the same way (preserving Mary from sin to bear Christ’s sinless nature) as He introduced His plan of man’s redemption.

And how about my second point-- why wouldn’t He similarly preserve every priest, who after all physically carry and administer the true body and blood of Christ? Not to mention every parishioner who receives Him in their bodies every mass… This is the problem I have with the “argument from ‘well, wouldn’t He?’” As I said I think there are much better arguments for the Immaculate Conception.

Well, we cannot presume to know God’s will or motives - only to observe how He has acted in creation. Christianity makes no sense if God were to preserve everyone from original, or personal sin. Thus equipped, we would no longer have free will. There would be no need to send Christ.

I really don’t think they do it to distinguish themselves (at least most of them)… I think it’s a genuine desire to err on the side of caution with respect to idolatry.

Oh, the “I” word again! What weakness of faith and shallow reverence for God’s plan and the blessed creations whom He made to carry them out! But, just mention the name “Paul” and in some cases, knees almost bend!

Yes, the Church doesn’t technically teach Mary- (or saint-) worship, or superstition, but you must admit that in popular practice the line often tends get pretty blurry.

It always appears so to unbelievers, or those who do not practice as Catholics do. Catholic practice can be difficult to understand, as God Himself is difficult to understand. Our practices came from Him, and bear some of the same mysterious ways. Thomas didn’t even believe it was Christ until he got his fingers bloody! Once convinced, he no longer doubted.

Probably the modern Protestant attitude to Mary is an overreaction in the other direction, but please don’t think it’s motivated by spite or pique (in the vast majority of cases).

Well, I would rather explain to the Lord why I venerated His chosen, than why I denigrated her memory, especially since her veneration is in Luke 1:48.

Now, know that I was Catholic for almost two decades before the Lord revealed the truth about Mary to me. Such is God. He sends His Spirit where He wills, and when He wills. The fact that I am here, defending church teaching on Mary, is a miracle in itself.

Consider: the first moment you believed: were you a perfected, fully developed disciple? No! It takes time, since our conversion is a process. The fact that we have both progressed in our faith is testament to God’s Divine Grace. Realize also, that suppression of teaching about Mary is a recent aberration. Do some carry devotion/suppression too far? Yes! But that is not church teaching.

Christ’s peace, my brother. You are doing the Lord’s work in China. I pray for those who suffer persecution because of His name. Great will be your reward in Heaven.

 

[jmcrae]

To quote Father Leo - “God honoured Mary. If she’s good enough for Him, she’s good enough for us - we can do no less.”

 

[dacoobob]

Thanks for your insightful response, po18guy, and for not getting offended at my comments. Peace, Phil