Non-Catholics, how is Mary not the Mother of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rightlydivide said:
Heretical views have a 2000 year history. I am not convinced they are percentage wise anymore or less prevalent today.
Click to expand...
This is a very accurate observation. I must say, it is rather phenomenal to see the same old heresies rear their ugly heads in a modern version, among those who seem to have no idea that they were already thought of, confronted, and defeated by the Church milennia ago.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Why is she not the Mother of the Holy Spirit if Jesus, the Father, and Holy Spirit are one?
Perhaps that would clarify this for me.
Click to expand...
Because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all distinct persons.
It’s fair to call EACH of them God, bu they are distinct persons.
So, she is rightly the Mother of Jesus, and, since Jesus is God, she is rightly the mother of God.
 
Araninski said:
This subject is indeed a mystery and we as God’s sons, we try to understand His mysteries. So we must take this subject seriously and with all the due respect. Everyone has his/her way of viewing it, if someone has it wrong, that person doesn’t have it wrong because he/she wants, that person is only trying to understand, some people are unable to digest a mystery and are better off thinking that because they leave the subject plain and simple to avoid confusion, others however try to understand it, and this sometimes, leads to a better spiritual growth.

My view:

Mary is the mother of Jesus human nature. Yes human nature, when people have a son they only make the body(this case the Holy Spirit and Mary), God is the One who gives the life to this person(Job 33:4). Jesus is God and He was before Mary and anyone else.

Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Without Jesus, Mary couldn’t have been made. Also remember Jesus gave up His God status when He came to Earth.

Philippians 2:6-8
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death–even death on a cross!

Jesus was tempted and this temptations were hard for Him to overcome, He suffered them, and never sinned. He was tempted in every way (Heb 4:15) , and yet He didn’t sin. It was hard for Him but He made it through, because He had faith in the One who sent him. Jesus lived a human life here, Mary was His mother in His lifetime as a human because He already was, “before Abraham I was”. So Mary is the mother of Jesus human nature.

God bless.
Click to expand...
So, if Mary is the mother of Jesus’ human nature, does that mean I’m the mother of my childrens’ natures, and not them as a whole person? :confused: God also gave life to my children, but I like to think that I had a larger role than helping to grow their body, no? 🤷
And it’s true, God existed long before Mary. But Jesus was born and died, and Jesus never stopped being God. So, it would still be fair to say that Mary is the God-bearer, right? 🤷
It would indeed be very sad if instead of saying I am the Mother of my children, that I had to say I was the mother of my childrens’ human nature. 😦
 
Radical said:
we could do this with a number of things involving Christ. For example:

Jesus = God

AND
God = someone who knows everything

THEREFORE
Jesus = someone who knows everything

…but that isn’t what scripture says. Or:

Jesus = God

AND
God = someone who can not be killed

THEREFORE
Jesus = someone who can not be killed

…but that isn’t what scripture says. How useful is logic in describing the manner in which Jesus is God?

“Mary is the Mother of God” is a simple slogan that doesn’t begin to describe the reality of the incarnation. The terms are open to various interpretations and it could be seen to imply things that aren’t true. The full details of the incarnation haven’t been revealed and may be beyond our ability to grasp. Our words may be simply inadequate. Further, the slogan carries a lot of baggage. Allegiance to the slogan shouldn’t be required (IMHO)…
Click to expand...
I’m confused. Are you saying that because Jesus didn’t claim to know everything, and because he was killed on the cross, that he somehow wasn’t God?
 
Rightlydivide said:
Kyrios does not specifically only refer to the Father or Christ’s relationship to Him. It depends on the context. It has several different uses. Are you suggesting in this passage that it means Mother of God?
It literally does not say “Mother of God”. You of course know the difference between the words.
Click to expand...
Maybe the poster of that verse did know the difference, but I’m afraid I don’t.
When I pray, I say ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ interchangeably. Are you saying they mean different things, even when both referring to God? (for example, I am obviously not talking about human lords who are lords of land and the such.)
 
I think the Crux of the matter lies here:>Since Jesus Christ is His Fathers Son, He is a divine person. He cannot be a human person also, as that would make Him two persons, each with a nature.

A woman gives birth to a ‘PERSON’ and that person possesses a nature, male, female etc. She does not give birth to a nature.

Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, a ‘DIVINE PERSON’.

Since Mary gave birth to a divine person, that makes her the Mother of GOD.

Peace
 
IMO Mary’s body was used as a vessel of honour to give God the Son human DNA.🙂
 
Australis said:
IMO Mary’s body was used as a vessel of honour to give God the Son human DNA.🙂
Click to expand...
So she isn’t a mother, she’s a container?
If God chose to come to us as a person like us (A man like us in all things but sin), why wouldn’t He have a mother instead of a ‘vessel of honor which gave Him human DNA’)

Unless, of course, you consider ALL of us mothers to be vessels of honor carrying our children to which we give human DNA, and that the definition of mother includes ‘vessels of honor’ etc. . .
 
Nobody is saying Mary created God. Mary is the mother of Jesus, of whom we can all agree is god. right?

A human being is body and soul you cannot break up a human birth into natures. Obviously Jesus has a human and divine nature, but that does not mean he could split himself while on earth.
 
Originally Posted by rwillenborg
So, if Mary is the mother of Jesus’ human nature, does that mean I’m the mother of my childrens’ natures, and not them as a whole person? God also gave life to my children, but I like to think that I had a larger role than helping to grow their body, no?
And it’s true, God existed long before Mary. But Jesus was born and died, and Jesus never stopped being God. So, it would still be fair to say that Mary is the God-bearer, right?
It would indeed be very sad if instead of saying I am the Mother of my children, that I had to say I was the mother of my childrens’ human nature.
Click to expand...
Yeah, exactly, as well as the father of your sons is the father of your son’s human nature. Because our real father is God right?

(Isaiah 9:6) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 64:8) Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
(Matthew 6:6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

There are far a lot more passages regarding this matter. Don’t be sad, you are the one who races your sons, you need to understand God is our real Father, your son is your brother/sister in Christ believe it or not, you only gave birth to his/her human nature.The same happen with Christ, with the difference The Son of God was not “born”, He already was because He is God. What was born was His human nature, you cannot give birth to Something that already was, only to something that wasn’t.
 
Continuation
Originally Posted by guanophore
This is the exact heresy that was popular at the time, and the reason for which the title Theotokos was given to her. Like all the Marian doctrines, it was defined because of Christ, to clarify the Teaching of the Apostles concerning Him.
Click to expand...
When you read the history of the early heresies, you will see that this point was, indeed, argued vigorously. In the end, the Church proclaimed the teaching of the Apostles that Jesus is fully God, and fully man, two natures in one Person.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you think the soul of a person is not also part of their personhood, but when a person is born, they are body, soul, and spirit. We do not know at which point the soul and spirit are joined with the body, but to be on the safe side, we consider that life begins at the moment of conception. Human life is comprised of all these elements. A mother gives birth to a person, body, soul, and spirit - not a “nature”. Indeed, Jesus human nature did come from Mary, whereas His divine nature He possessed forever. In Him, these two natures were joined in one Person.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it is a great mystery, and one quite beyond the feeble comprehension of our limited human minds. However, we do know certain things by revelation, and that Mary is the Mother of God is one of those revelations.
Click to expand...
Yeah you got it right, with the difference that God is the One who gives birth to the spirit and soul, because this is something invisible, something visible doesn’t make something invisible, in the contrary, something invisible makes the visible, this is the story of the Universe, the Earth, Humanity, etc.

Hebrews 11:1-4
" Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead."

Now Christ is the visible Image of the Invisible God.

Colossians 1:15-20
“Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation. Christ is the one through whom God created everything in heaven and earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see – kings, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities. Everything has been created through him and for him. He existed before everything else began, and he holds all creation together. Christ is the head of the church, which is his body. He is the first of all who will rise from the dead, so he is first in everything. For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and by him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of his blood on the cross.”

Therefore Mary is the mother of the Visible Image of the Invisible God. The spirit and the soul are invisible. And God is the One who makes them. She is mother of the visible part not the Invisible. So saying that Mary is the mother of God makes you heretic, no, because you use that to try to understand God. I Respect your views but this are my views, this is a mystery of God and we try to understand it, and we do in different ways, if God is in our lives by thinking the way we do, we can’t be heretics.
Originally Posted by guanophore
I am not sure what this means to you. Do you think that Jesus did not have a divine nature?
Click to expand...
This means His flesh was against Him. His flesh was weakness to Him, but His faith won triumphant over the flesh, and of course the Devil.

Jesus ALWAYS had his divine nature. What happen in the birth of His human nature was that His divine nature was sent down from the heaven to the Earth into His human nature. Remember He came from the Heavens sent by His Father to Earth.
Originally Posted by guanophore
Mary is the mother of Jesus, His person. That means, she is the mother of the Son of God, who emptied Himself, and became flesh, and dwelt among us. To deny this is to deny the incarnation, which is why the term was chosen.
Click to expand...
I am only denying she is the mother of God. Mother of His flesh that would be. The Word made flesh, not the other way around.

God bless !
 
Rightlydivide said:
When Mary as the Mother of God controversy broke out it caused a rift with the Nestorians right? Well, did it even matter in the long run because the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East) and the Catholics are buddy buddy now due to recent ecumenical declarations and so forth.
In other words, the very people it was supposed to shape up have better relations with you than we do.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with Rome, nor with the Orthodox churches. I haven’t read much about them, but from what little I’ve seen, their theology still seems to be Nestorian.

I think perhaps the rejection of the phrase “Mother of God” is a human instinct which reacts with the thought, “but God can’t have a mother!”

But this is precisely the scandal of the Incarnation. God chose to have a mother. When God the Son chose to become a human being, he also chose to have a mother, and He chose his mother.

If we accept the idea that God could choose to become human, we also accept the idea that he could choose his mother. She was as fully his mother in every respect that any of our mothers are.

The title of Theotokos, Mother of God, reaffirms the Incarnation. It reaffirms both the divine and human nature of Jesus, and prevents us from trying to lessen the meaning of God becoming man.
 
JimG;6895277]As far as I know, the Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with Rome, nor with the Orthodox churches. I haven’t read much about them, but from what little I’ve seen, their theology still seems to be Nestorian.
Click to expand...
They ARE Nestorian essentially and it seems not to matter anymore it appears
Christ therefore is not an " ordinary man" whom God adopted in order to reside in him and inspire him, as in the righteous ones and the prophets. But the same God the Word, begotten of his Father before all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was born of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity. The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour”. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
 
It seems the way the Protestant schismatics address this issue is by reverting to the Nestorian heresy - a few posts here have suggested that Mary gave birth to Jesus the man, not Jesus the God, but they’re the same thing (Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, there’s not two separate natures within Him).

Protestantism doesn’t tend to hold too strongly to the dogma of the Trinity when it comes down to it. Whether realizing it or not, most Protestant distinguish God the Father and Jesus, the Son of God as two separate substances - being two completely separate beings.

Also, someone tried to make the distinction between “God” and “Lord” with regards to the Greek word for “Lord” (Kyrios). Keep in mind the speaker here (Elizabeth) was a Jew and the Hebrew “Lord” (Adonai) is what Jews said/say in place of YHWH (the Tetragrammaton, the Name of God). That means Elizabeth wasn’t separating Jesus the Godhead of which he is a part - instead, she was quite closely attaching Jesus to the Fount of All Godhead by making this statement - and that of course is God the Father, who begets God the Son and from whom proceeds God the Holy Ghost.

Oh, and in response to a post on the first page…

“Beget” is the word proper to what a father does in providing the seed for a child. A woman does not - technically - “beget” children. Also, the Latin of the Nicene Creed (and he was made man) is “et homo factus est”. This doesn’t leave itself open to the interpretation that Mary “made” Jesus a man by giving birth to a separate nature. Catholic dogma teaches that Jesus “became man without change” (that’s a quote from the Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). Jesus’ nature has always been the same - God is static and no person of Him is subject to change in nature or substance.
 
Araninski said:
I am only denying she is the mother of God. Mother of His flesh that would be. The Word made flesh, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the point here. The Word MADE flesh. Not “the Word looked like flesh but was really not.” The Word took flesh from Mary. God humbled Himself to our finite being (yet eternal; but that is another thing).

Arininski: I have trouble doing multiple quotes so here is your saying in bold.

Therefore Mary is the mother of the Visible Image of the Invisible God. The spirit and the soul are invisible. And God is the One who makes them. She is mother of the visible part not the Invisible. So saying that Mary is the mother of God makes you heretic, no, because you use that to try to understand God. I Respect your views but this are my views, this is a mystery of God and we try to understand it, and we do in different ways, if God is in our lives by thinking the way we do, we can’t be heretics.

Yes spirit and soul are invisible and yes God makes them. But body, soul and spirit are all part of one thing. We are all like mini-trinities. Christ is the PERFECT Image of him; visible and invisible. He was the Perfection of the “mini-trinities” (to quote myself and for lack of better words on my part) that are us. God instills in us our spirit which our mothers carry also. She gave birth to this Being that is all 3 (body, soul and spirit) aspects. Again. Mary is Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Mary is Mother of God. There is no logical way out of this. He is the Son of Man; this does not exclude being Son of God. We are all sons of God AND sons of Man. But when it comes to Jesus for some reason, He is either Son of God or Son of Man.

Yeah you got it right, with the difference that God is the One who gives birth to the spirit and soul, because this is something invisible, something visible doesn’t make something invisible, in the contrary, something invisible makes the visible, this is the story of the Universe, the Earth, Humanity, etc.

We never said his Divinity was “made” from Mary. We just say she was the God-bearer. Saying she made His divinity would be heretical, I would say so anyway. But that is NOT what we are saying

**This means His flesh was against Him. His flesh was weakness to Him, but His faith won triumphant over the flesh, and of course the Devil.

Jesus ALWAYS had his divine nature. What happen in the birth of His human nature was that His divine nature was sent down from the heaven to the Earth into His human nature. Remember He came from the Heavens sent by His Father to Earth.**

Yes Jesus always has had His divinity. We never deny that. What happened was not just the birth. It was the FACT that Mary carried Him who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Then came the birth. She gave birth to all of Him. She did not “make” his divinity. She bore him.
 
JimG said:
Ah, we live in a much more ecumenical age, and I am glad of it. Better to talk than fight. Ecumenism does not, however, eliminate theological differences. Catholics and Nestorians still cannot join in the Eucharist together for lack of unity on these matters.
Click to expand...
Charity is ALL things. We are commanded to love one another as Christ as loved us - even unto death for our sakes.

However, we must be careful not to suggest heresy or schism is acceptable - extra ecclesiam nulla salus!
 
The Vatican accepts how the Assyrian Church of the East describes it. So I would think they would be okay with us doing the same thing. Its consistent that way.
 
Rightlydivide said:
The Vatican accepts how the Assyrian Church of the East describes it. So I would think they would be okay with us doing the same thing. Its consistent that way.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand the Vatican on this issue. They seem to be saying the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East has the same relationship that exists between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox and the Assyrians both had valid sacraments (a Christian beholding their Eucharist ought to show proper reverence due to the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ); however, they are not in a state of normalcy with respect to their relationship with the Vicar of Christ.

With regards to the Orthodox Church, a Catholic may receive their sacraments under duress (if not able to receive from a Catholic priest), but otherwise may ought not to receive - though those sacraments are always valid (real) they are illicit (illegal) except under duress. The Vatican seems to be saying the same about the Assyrian Church of the East - that is, they are not in communion with the See of Peter, but are a a church with valid sacraments. This issue is much more complicated than the issue at hand in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top