A
adstrinity
Guest
Are Protestants okay with refering to The Blessed Virgin Mother in this manner? It kinda says who Jesus is. I don’t think non-Christians would accept this title.
- Status
K
kobefire
Guest
yeah i agree with you,
mother is great in the world,
mother is great in the world,
A
adstrinity
Guest
No posting Protestant has an opinion or an answer?
S
Steadfast
Guest
Well, it’s hard to speak for ALL Protestants but I don;t have any problem with it, but then most educated Lutherans are also comfortable with calling her “Mother of God” as well.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I’ll do you one better! For us as Lutherans, it’s an article of faith.
B
brkn1
Guest
There should be caution when assigning titles to biblical saints.
I have no problem if someone identifies the Lord Jesus’ mother as “Mary the mother of my Lord”. There are several woman identified as Mary in the Bible and that often makes further identification necessary.
The problem I have noticed with the more extreme titles given to Mary is that it leads to an unnecessary and inappropriate glorification of her, which such glorification should only be directed towards God.
W
water
Guest
I am happy that She is also my Mother.
C
cathopologist
Guest
Mary is the Mother of Our Lord. The first person who knew of Christ’s birth before anyone else. The first person to nurture Him. The first person who believed in Him. The first person Christ turned to as a child.
I have no problems using beautiful expressions to call out my mom. She did after all, give birth to me and took care of me when i fell down or injured myself. Sometimes i call my mother “My Queen”. She feels embarrassed but i think it befits her. If it wasn’t for her, i’d be someone else today. Why should it be any different for Mary? What is there not to like about her? Mary is the Mother of Our Father in Heaven.
I have no problems using beautiful expressions to call out my mom. She did after all, give birth to me and took care of me when i fell down or injured myself. Sometimes i call my mother “My Queen”. She feels embarrassed but i think it befits her. If it wasn’t for her, i’d be someone else today. Why should it be any different for Mary? What is there not to like about her? Mary is the Mother of Our Father in Heaven.
B
BlestOne
Guest
The real problem about the titles of Mary seem to come from the definition of worship. Before the modern era, people understood the word worship alot differently than we do now. Therefore, they ascribe derogatory connotations to the belief that Catholics worship Mary and in an almost heretical fashion they go to the opposite extreme to differentiate their beliefs as non-Catholic.
By this I mean that before the 1900’s or late 1800’s people defined worship in a much broader sense. It was ok to “worship” their teachers, parents, friends… aka what we would call adore or admire today. They also used the word worship to describe the honor that they gave to elders and parents… we use the words honor and respect… then there are the saints and Mary being one of them… they had no problem with worship given to them meaning admiration, worthy of imitation, and great respect and love… the greatest worship was for God alone… the true and total worship of knowing that we owe our very lives to God and his salvic works for us… this one is also true today but we seemed to have dropped all the other references to “worship” in favor of this being the only definition.
That being said, there have been people in the past that object to the term “Mother of God” and will only refer to Mary as the “Mother of Jesus” or the earthly mother of the son incarnate… this seems to be from a misguided sense of sexuality and age. How can Mary be the Mother of God when God (the Father) came before her? Or How can she be the Mother of God when it was the Holy Spirit that “overshadowed” her? These same people have no problem saying that they believe in the trinity and that Jesus is God… but when faced with the mechanics of how Mary would come to be the Mother of God… they have a problem.
The true answer is that God is outside of time… God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit… all outside time. But then so is heaven… this brings the problems of “Mary, Queen of Heaven” or “Queen Mother”… How can she be they ask… “Are Catholics putting her on the same level as God?” Simply, the answer is NO but because this is the thought they seek to denigrate the importance of Mary to Salvation… she is just the mother of the human nature of Jesus. No… She is also the mother of his divine side too… these cannot be separated in this case.
Mother of my Lord is what Elizabeth called her… it is Biblical… it is true… and it is a proper title and position for the bearer of our salvation don’t you think?
By this I mean that before the 1900’s or late 1800’s people defined worship in a much broader sense. It was ok to “worship” their teachers, parents, friends… aka what we would call adore or admire today. They also used the word worship to describe the honor that they gave to elders and parents… we use the words honor and respect… then there are the saints and Mary being one of them… they had no problem with worship given to them meaning admiration, worthy of imitation, and great respect and love… the greatest worship was for God alone… the true and total worship of knowing that we owe our very lives to God and his salvic works for us… this one is also true today but we seemed to have dropped all the other references to “worship” in favor of this being the only definition.
That being said, there have been people in the past that object to the term “Mother of God” and will only refer to Mary as the “Mother of Jesus” or the earthly mother of the son incarnate… this seems to be from a misguided sense of sexuality and age. How can Mary be the Mother of God when God (the Father) came before her? Or How can she be the Mother of God when it was the Holy Spirit that “overshadowed” her? These same people have no problem saying that they believe in the trinity and that Jesus is God… but when faced with the mechanics of how Mary would come to be the Mother of God… they have a problem.
The true answer is that God is outside of time… God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit… all outside time. But then so is heaven… this brings the problems of “Mary, Queen of Heaven” or “Queen Mother”… How can she be they ask… “Are Catholics putting her on the same level as God?” Simply, the answer is NO but because this is the thought they seek to denigrate the importance of Mary to Salvation… she is just the mother of the human nature of Jesus. No… She is also the mother of his divine side too… these cannot be separated in this case.
Mother of my Lord is what Elizabeth called her… it is Biblical… it is true… and it is a proper title and position for the bearer of our salvation don’t you think?
I
imroc
Guest
Hi!
I just want to pick at your heart a bit on this.
- Can you please elaborate further on “uneccessary glorification”
- Can you please elaborate further on “inappropriate glorification”
- Is there a spritual, theological, biolocial or even mathematical equation that show’s that glorifying a person takes away glorification from God? (Not trying to be funny, just want you to ponder this)
B
brkn1
Guest
There are titles for Mary that are just not appropriate.
I will chose a title that best defines my point: “Co-Redemptrix”.
The RCC says that this “Co-Redemptrix” is a subordinate role to Christ as the Redeemer.
The problem with this explanation is that Mary has no role in the actual redemption process. She did nothing to redeem us. Only the Saviour Jesus did all of that by Himself.
The explanation that “co” only means “with” is dishonest too.
Co-Redemptrix means “another redeemer”, which takes some of the glory away from the only True One Redeemer. Only Jesus deserves the title of our Redeemer.
Mary never had any role as a redeemer, so the title “Co-Redemptrix” is a fabrication and misleadingly false.
S
Steadfast
Guest
It’s also not a dogma; i.e something Catholics are required to believe.
M
MrStain
Guest
All bible-believing Protestants should be ok with this since it is straight from Scripture (Luke 1:43) after all. Additionally, since Protestants accept the authorative declarations of the early councils regarding the Trinity & the hypostatic union i.e. Jesus is one person w/ 2 natures, I would assume they would also be ok with the title, Theotokos.
I
imroc
Guest
I agree that “Another Redeemer” could very well take away the glory from the only True Redeemer to a degree. In the case of Mormonism (and please my friends, do not take this subject off course by your insertions of another topic) that Joseph Smith’s actions, words and eventual elevation does indeed take away from the glory of Christ. However, I wouldn’t hesitate that nothing that faithful and understanding catholics do in honor of Christ’s mother, our mother, detracts from the work of Christ. We understand her to have full grace FROM God that allowed her FULL cooperation with His will. Perfectly. So perfect, that it was her who carried the Son in her womb. A commited sanctuary set aside by God in full cooperation of Mary. A holy place to contain the holiest of holies as a matter of fact. Mary understood this so much that there was no question of her participation of what was to come for all mankind. “My soul doth magnify the Lord” as she went on to say. But she did not take this role on with a big head or ego. This lowly handmaid of the Lord has lowered herself far below, dare I say, what you and I would car to admit. The lowliest on earth shall… How does her soul magnify the Lord? The ever Magnificent One, the Almighty, the I Am? How can any human maginify the Lord, who is seemingly beyond magnification in His own nature? Yet, how odd it is that our lady was given such a “task” as to bear God the Son, nurture, raise and follow as a disciple, all while “magnifying” the Lord. She had the ultimate cooperation with God’s will. So full cooperation that she did indeed have a hand in the history of our redemption. I understand your fear of acceptance of such a title and I copied a section of a document for you to read and ponder. But, I also want you to ponder this: The detachment from Marian doctrine and dogma of the catholic church by protestants has escalated so much over the 500 years of protestantism that it’s having a profound impact on society and values in general. (Martin Luther would roll over in his grave if he and the other “reformers” heard such crude and denial statements of the mother of God.) You must understand that Mary did indeed have a certain role in our redemption with God the Son, and the denial that it’s far exceeding of our meager role even in the co-redemption of friends and family. The profound impact that I am talking about is beyond this though. This impact is directly in relation to the so-called Christian acceptance in abortion, no matter what. I’ve heard so-called Christians claiming that abortion should be necessary in extreme situations like rape, disease and the risk of the mothers death. Following what I said about Mary’s full cooperation with the will of God and lowering herself far below what any of us would care to admit, do you think that we would be participating in the redemptive role with Christ ourselves? Do you think may, just maybe that the understanding of Mary’s role is lacking in these Christian’s minds and heart and it has gone way to far? I would argue that the energy spent in disclaiming marian doctrine and dogma by protestants take more from the Glory of God than acceptance. Our adoration of God has not diminished in 2000 years and Mary has never taken that from us. We, try our best to learn from the wisdom of the Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit even when it means stripping ourselves of our worldy attachment. There is a wisdom there that is a mystery in itself. I never saw that wisdom as a young protestant baptist and pentecostal. I saw a “reed that bent in the wind” and that collapsed when the world applied its pressures. I saw in the caholic church a “rock” that can’t bend in the wind.
I would go on to say that you too, are called to be a saint and thus a sort of co-redemer for God. Bold statement? Yes indeed. A seemingly unimagineable calling? No
B
brkn1
Guest
I read all of your post carefully and I saved some important statements that you made.
We agree that the Virgin Mary was the mother of our Lord and Redeemer.
That role as mother is not the same as the role of actually being a redeemer in any way. Mary did not shed her blood as a Perfect Sacrifice to pay for our sin. Only the Redeemer could and did do that once on Calvary.
The title Co-Redemptrix" has the word “Redemptrix” in it.
“Redemptrix” means female redeemer, so that title does claim for Mary a role as an actual “part”- redeemer.
Since Mary did not shed blood for sin, that title is false and should not be used. Redemption would have to be redefined to fit the explanation offered by those who say Mary was , in any way, a “Co-Redemptrix”.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the one and only Redeemer.
I
imroc
Guest
I hate to bug you like this, but can you give me references for:
catcha later!
God Bless
Also, I want to let you know that I agree with you wholeheartedly that Mary did not shed her blood for us as Christ did. And like you said, she’s the mother of our Lord. What exactly is ‘motherhood’ though? I want to continue this with more, but I’m going to seriously consider you statements and mine…but for now I have a youth group minister’s meeting
catcha later!God Bless
L
LutheranDK
Guest
You can’t possibly be THAT oldI am happy that She is also my Mother.
L
LutheranDK
Guest
I’m more than ok with it. As it’s been said - it’s an article of faith. If one says that Mary is not the “Mother of my Lord”, he says that Jesus is not the Lord.
If one denies Mary as “theotokos” (“God-bearer”), then he is denying the Trinity, placing himself outside of Christendom.
PS: Just FYI: “he” can also be read “she”
- Status