A
Aaron_Creagh
Guest
heretic!!!There were a lot of great people in Sacred Scripture, but they simply prepared the way for Christ. Also none of them were the Mother of God.
- Status
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Abrahamic covenant
Sarai was Blessed however, she didn’t bear the Redeemer. That would be Mary.
A
Aaron_Creagh
Guest
A
Aaron_Creagh
Guest
I’m sorry.
Please forgive me for my actions.
Please forgive me for my actions.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
M
MaryT777
Guest
I agree. Miracles abound in the Bible; where sin abounds grace abounds all the more.
I hope you will continue to post your views.
Sometimes we Catholics get too overzealous in our “defense” of holding Mary in high esteem as we see based on the Bible; blessed are you among women.
It’s because we’ve been told so many times we are Mary worshippers, idolaters of Mary,
love Mary more than Christ etc (Like you might feel if someone insults your own mother
)All poster here intend to be charitable.
Stick around
(I am responding to another post; I think you’ll know what I am trying to say peacefully
)Blessings this Palm Sunday,
Mary.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Heresy! The above from the ex-Catholic is nothing but trying to separate the two natures of Christ. A heresy stamped out long before any ex-Catholic tried to re-invent the wheel.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I see former Catholics keen on misrepresenting past events and using them as a sign that makes Catholicism false. They have done alot of such publications, and those who are still not believing in the authority of the Church, find them and use them as verifiable sources to support their difficulties.
P
PRmerger
Guest
All doctrines/dogmas on Mary only serve to enhance and nourish our understanding of Christ.
An impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ.
I don’t exactly understand the question. Except I guess the answer would be: God made Mary sinless.
As to why He did, it was to make a fitting vessel for His Son.
He whom the world could not contain was contained in the womb of a woman.
J
jrtrent
Guest
Trying to see why what Mr. Schroeder said is heresy, I found several sites that said denial that Mary is the Mother of God is essentially Nestorianism. However, Nestorianism goes beyond not preferring a particular title for Mary; it also teaches, “that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. Thus, Nestorians reject such terminology as “God suffered” or “God was crucified”, because they believe that the man Jesus Christ suffered.” orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorianism
I don’t believe that’s the position Mr. Schroeder is taking.
By the way, a few people have reacted negatively to the fact that I quoted an ex-Catholic, so I’m sorry about that. I wasn’t trying to be offensive; I just thought he phrased a position held by many Protestants in a way that was appropriate to JohnNC’s post.
Aidanbradypop had said, “The whole denying Mary is the Mother of God baffles me. If one believes Christ is God, then one has to affirm that Mary is the Mother of God. BUT they do not.” I just tried to give a couple of reasons why some object to that title.
Here’s the argument from a person who is not an ex-Catholic:
The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that the incarnate Christ is one person with two natures, one human and one divine. This has very important consequences. It implies that since Christ existed prior to his incarnation, he was a divine person before taking on a human nature. He was and is the second person of the Trinity. In the incarnation this divine person assumes a human nature as well, but there is no other person in Christ than the second person of the Trinity. There is an additional human nature which the pre-incarnate Christ did not have, but there is no human person in addition to the divine person. There is just one person who has two natures.
Therefore, what Christ said and did, God said and did, since when we speak of Christ we’re talking about a person. For that reason the Council endorses speaking of Mary as “the mother of God.” She bore the person who is a divine person. Unfortunately, this language has been disastrously misleading because it sounds as though Mary birthed the divine nature of Christ when in fact she birthed Christ’s human nature. Mohammed apparently thought that Christians believed that Mary was the third member of the Trinity, and Jesus was the offspring of God the Father and Mary, a view which he rightly rejected as blasphemous, though no orthodox Christian holds it. reasonablefaith.org/the-death-of-god-and-the-death-of-christ
Even Boettner of the infamous “anti-Catholic Bible” (his title, Roman Catholicism) acknowledges no problem with the title “Mother of God according to the manhood” as found in the Creed of Chalcedon. What many Protestant writers claim as the basis for their objection is that while the title was originally used to emphasize the deity of Christ, it has become used as a way to exalt Mary. As Boettner put it, “It no longer has reference to the orthodox doctrine concerning the person of Christ, but instead is used to exalt Mary to a supernatural status as Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Angels, etc.”
There are a lot of differences between Catholics and Protestants, but one thing we do share is the doctrine of the person of Christ–eternally God, yet also became man at the incarnation; both divine and human, yet not two persons but one Person with two natures, “the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person.” (creed of Chalcedon)
Edit:
I fully agree. I have no problem with the title Mother of God applied to Mary, but I was trying to provide reasons from a Protestant perspective why some have objected to its use. I hope the above is clear. I don’t expect anyone to stop using the phrase; I just wanted to ease Aidanbradypop’s state of bafflement regarding “the whole denying Mary is the Mother of God” thing.
A
Aaron_Creagh
Guest
Why do I hear the phrase “Mother of God” from Catholics more often than I hear “Mother of Jesus?”
His human nature needed to be there for the full effect to take place.
That seems like a little bit of separation of the full nature of Jesus Christ.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Mother of the Lord…Biblical-Luke. The Lord is God. The Council of Ephesus 431. Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. Hypostatic Union. Fully Divine, Fully Human.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Jesus is God the Son. Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
This dogma states that Mary is the mother of God (de fide).
The term “Mother of God” appears within the oldest known prayer to Mary, the Sub tuum praesidium, which dates to around 250 AD and states: “Under thy protection we seek refuge, Holy Mother of God”. This is reflected in the following statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.”
Early in the fifth century after the Church Fathers had found common ground on Mary’s virginity before, during and after giving birth, this was the first specifically Marian doctrine to be formally defined by the Church. The definition Mother of God (in Greek:Theotokos) was formally affirmed at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. The objection to the title raised by Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, was rejected at the council.
Scriptural basis for the dogma is found in John 1:14 which states “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” and Galatians 4:4 which states “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law”. Luke 1:35 further affirms divine maternity by stating: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee … wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.”
The dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium at the Second Vatican Council affirmed Mary as the Mother of God by stating:
“The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer.”
This dogma is inherently related to the Christological dogma of the hypostatic union which relates the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t know.
Because you hear people praying the Hail Mary more than you hear them talking about Mary?
Is there some Scripture verse that you believe this contradicts?
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I don’t know.
Because you hear people praying the Hail Mary more than you hear them talking about Mary?
Is there some Scripture verse that you believe this contradicts?
I know…I knowBecause she is.
P
pablope
Guest
What do you think is the difference between the phrase Mother of God vs Mother of Jesus?
Should one differentiate or emphasize or deemphasize his human nature from his divine nature with the phrases? Or should take all of Jesus?
And can you show how the phrase Mother of God somehow separates the full nature of Jesus"?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Does seem to have been around awhile, Mother of Jesus.
ourladyweb.com/mary.html
“[Nestorius did not recant], and founded his own church - which is no longer with us. In effect, in saying that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God, he was denying the reality of the incarnation. Attempts to downgrade Mary seem always lead to a downgrading of the full divinity of Jesus.”:
ourladyweb.com/mary.html
“[Nestorius did not recant], and founded his own church - which is no longer with us. In effect, in saying that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God, he was denying the reality of the incarnation. Attempts to downgrade Mary seem always lead to a downgrading of the full divinity of Jesus.”:
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I see that as well.
- Status